Management Thread | Who needs draft picks Edition

[Canucker]

Yup.

Idk how people don’t understand this.

Hughes is a UFA in 4 years.

Petey is an RFA after next year.

We don’t have the luxury just to “chill”. Our superstars are entering their prime.

People understand what you're saying, they just don't buy into the pearl clutching.

 

[Nucker101]

Yup.

Idk how people don’t understand this.

Hughes is a UFA in 4 years.

Petey is an RFA after next year.

We don’t have the luxury just to “chill”. Our superstars are entering their prime.

I agree with this being the Canucks mindset but then I’d call keeping the 2024 1st round pick a failure. It should be shopped starting this summer. 2023, if it’s outside of the top 3 should also be shopped.

You have a 4 year Quinn Hughes window. There’s a reason why a GM like Dubas continues trading away picks, he knows there’s a Matthews UFA clock that’s ticking.

Canucks need to have that same mindset after the Hronek trade

 

[Diogenes92]

40 and 43 won’t be here if we “chill for a few years.” You can’t keep the core players you like to watch and not retool. It’s pretty simple.

If they want to have even a small chance at winning a cup, then they should be on board with a 2 to 3 year reset. But, unfortunately, that ship has sailed.

They have seen what the results have been with the exact same plan in past seasons.

Regardless, once this current "1% chance at winning the cup plan" inevitability fails, they'll be in an even worse position and even more of their prime years will be wasted.

I would actually have zero issue if the Canucks traded Pettersson and Hughes at the draft.

The problem is that the Canucks should've "tanked hard for Bedard" when they had the chance.

Even if they lost out in the lottery, there are 2 or 3 elite level centres to build around.

Petey and Hughes have good stats, but they haven't proven a single thing when it comes to sustained playoff success or winning.

 

[DonnyNucker]

If they want to have even a small chance at winning a cup, then they should be on board with a 2 to 3 year reset. But, unfortunately, that ship has sailed.

They have seen what the results have been with the exact same plan in past seasons.

Regardless, once this current "1% chance at winning the cup plan" inevitability fails, they'll be in an even worse position and even more of their prime years will be wasted.

I would actually have zero issue if the Canucks traded Pettersson and Hughes at the draft.

The problem is that the Canucks should've "tanked hard for Bedard" when they had the chance.

Even if they lost out in the lottery, there are 2 or 3 elite level centres to build around.

Petey and Hughes have good stats, but they haven't proven a single thing when it comes to sustained playoff success or winning.

I’d prefer to trade Hughes and Elias as well but no f***ing chance. They will likely be gone in a few years so we may as well take a shot. Trade this years first and next and fix the d.

 

[4th line culture]

I’d prefer to trade Hughes and Elias as well but no f***ing chance. They will likely be gone in a few years so we may as well take a shot. Trade this years first and next and fix the d.

If they are likely gone anyways why not start caring about the future now? Why always short term pain for more long term pain.

 

[JohnHodgson]

People understand what you're saying, they just don't buy into the pearl clutching.

I don't see anyone screaming to trade Petey and Hughes for a full rebuild. Just a bunch of people shitting on management but not really providing alternative solutions.

It's basically option 1 or option 2.... Option 3 doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Option 1 is to rebuild around Petey and Hughes.

Option 2 is to do a full rebuild.

Option 3 is to do a half-ass rebuild while wasting the prime years of Hughes and Petey. They also won't likely want to stay (they've publicly said this - especially Petey) throughout a mini-rebuild.

People want to trade Miller for nothing just to "get off his contract", but they have no proposals or solutions to get a 2C. Our C depth is literally Petey and AHLers if we trade Miller.

I don't see anything wrong with Option 1.

 

[Diogenes92]

I’d prefer to trade Hughes and Elias as well but no f***ing chance. They will likely be gone in a few years so we may as well take a shot. Trade this years first and next and fix the d.

Sure. The all-in plan. Buyout OEL, etc.

Create cap space. Sign another bloated FA contract.

Trade the next 2 years picks for more immediate 25 yo help.

Hope that Petey, Demko, Hughes can replicate or possibly improve on their past success.

But if they don't win the cup within Petey's contract window, then it's more than just a 3-5 year rebuild on the horizon. It's more likely purgatory for a decade unless the salary cap miraculously shoots up by 20 million.

 

[JohnHodgson]

If they are likely gone anyways why not start caring about the future now? Why always short term pain for more long term pain.

Why would you not try to build around your franchise forward, defenseman and goalie in their prime ages?

 

[4th line culture]

Why would you not try to build around your franchise forward, defenseman and goalie in their prime ages?

Agreed I would love for them too do that. But they keep trading away their building blocks for other people's toys

 

[Canucker]

I don't see anyone screaming to trade Petey and Hughes for a full rebuild. Just a bunch of people shitting on management but not really providing alternative solutions.

It's basically option 1 or option 2.... Option 3 doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Option 1 is to rebuild around Petey and Hughes.

Option 2 is to do a full rebuild.

Option 3 is to do a half-ass rebuild while wasting the prime years of Hughes and Petey. They also won't likely want to stay (they've publicly said this - especially Petey) throughout a mini-rebuild.

People want to trade Miller for nothing just to "get off his contract", but they have no proposals or solutions to get a 2C. Our C depth is literally Petey and AHLers if we trade Miller.

I don't see anything wrong with Option 1.

What they are currently doing is the "half assed" Option 3....I think Option 3, when done properly, is the best way to go...they're just not approaching it the same way.

 

[RandV]

One thing that is hard to predict in terms of players’ waiving no trade clauses is how the particular player reacts to being told the team doesn’t want him.

For a player like Myers with a M-NTC:

CLAUSE DETAILS: Starting July 1, 2022 the player submits a 10 team no trade list.

He has to provide his no trade list to the team, so if any of the 22 other teams want to acquire him the Canucks don't need to ask. The only way he has to be asked is if only a team on his no trade list wants him.

 

[RandV]

Are you just making up things now, or at least taking things completely out of context.

Jagr only told the top 4 teams that he won't come over right away. He told the Pens that he would "show up" tomorrow. Not only that, it was 1990, the Iron Curtain just fell and NHL teams were still a bit skittish picking Europeans. He never said he didn't want to play for the Canucks.

The Sedins said they wanted to play together but they NEVER said they would not sign. You made that up.

1999 was weak and GM's knew it. That's why they were open to moving around. Go read up on how Burke actually managed to get the picks.

Sounded to me like someone taking examples from other sports (which I wouldn't be aware of) and incorrectly applying them to the NHL.

A big difference when you're talking potential generational player vs random high 1st round picks, and the only time something like this actually occurred in the NHL was when Eric Lindros said he wouldn't play for the Quebec Nordiques. Not dictating who he would play for, just that he didn't want to go to Quebec, and it probably only worked because they were in pretty big financial trouble and were in to weak a position to put up with his bullshit.

If the Canucks tried to pull something like that guy was suggesting I would imagine Bettman would come down on us with the wrath of god, probably fined forfeiting the next 5 1st round picks. Remember the Coyotes under Chayka got busted for "conducting illegal pre-draft testing" and forfeited their 2020 2nd and 2021 1st for it.

 

[andora]

Sounded to me like someone taking examples from other sports (which I wouldn't be aware of) and incorrectly applying them to the NHL.

A big difference when you're talking potential generational player vs random high 1st round picks, and the only time something like this actually occurred in the NHL was when Eric Lindros said he wouldn't play for the Quebec Nordiques. Not dictating who he would play for, just that he didn't want to go to Quebec, and it probably only worked because they were in pretty big financial trouble and were in to weak a position to put up with his bullshit.

If the Canucks tried to pull something like that guy was suggesting I would imagine Bettman would come down on us with the wrath of god, probably fined forfeiting the next 5 1st round picks. Remember the Coyotes under Chayka got busted for "conducting illegal pre-draft testing" and forfeited their 2020 2nd and 2021 1st for it.

Thats too bad .. inagine how much further along they would be with those picks

 

[Jyrki21]

Just stop with the “Petey and Hughes won’t stick around”. If the alternative is a middling team with absolutely no hope of winning, that’s not better for them. The excuse was dumb with the Sedins (who had to endure futile losing with veterans instead of losing while rebuilding, supposedly in their name), and it’s nonsense that younger players would be dead set against building a contender if the alternative is a fringe playoff team at best.

Also stop with the “picks won’t make an impact for years”. Even if true (it’s not), that logic means we should simply trade all our picks every year (and also never plant trees while we’re at it). Eventually you get to the years where the lack of a pipeline matters… like right now, for instance. We’ll need the help in a few years too.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Just stop with the “Petey and Hughes won’t stick around”. If the alternative is a middling team with absolutely no hope of winning, that’s not better for them. The excuse was dumb with the Sedins (who had to endure futile losing with veterans instead of losing while rebuilding, supposedly in their name), and it’s nonsense that younger players would be dead set against building a contender if the alternative is a fringe playoff team at best.

Also stop with the “picks won’t make an impact for years”. Even if true (it’s not), that logic means we should simply trade all our picks every year (and also never plant trees while we’re at it). Eventually you get to the years where the lack of a pipeline matters… like right now, for instance. We’ll need the help in a few years too.

Lol..listen to you..Hughes literally said flat out last week that he’s not onboard with a rebuild..and EP pretty much mirrored that sentiment before signing his last contract.

Nobody is anti pick,or anti draft..Just trying to relay the circumstances and the logic behind moving the pick for a 25 year old top4 RHD.

 

[racerjoe]

The twins at age 32, was a lot different then Hughes and Petey at 24/25.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I agree with this being the Canucks mindset but then I’d call keeping the 2024 1st round pick a failure. It should be shopped starting this summer. 2023, if it’s outside of the top 3 should also be shopped.

You have a 4 year Quinn Hughes window. There’s a reason why a GM like Dubas continues trading away picks, he knows there’s a Matthews UFA clock that’s ticking.

Canucks need to have that same mindset after the Hronek trade

Yep. If the Canucks win a draft lottery this year, they should obviously keep the pick, but if the plan is to try to maximize their chances while EP/Quinn/Demko are on the clock then I’d seriously look at trading a pick in the 6-12 range of this draft. A half-assed re-tool is just as bad an option as a half-assed rebuild. The Lekkerimaki pick in hindsight is completely pointless given where management wants to be.

 

[Diogenes92]

Lol..listen to you..Hughes literally said flat out last week that he’s not onboard with a rebuild..and EP pretty much mirrored that sentiment before signing his last contract.

Nobody is anti pick,or anti draft..Just trying to relay the circumstances and the logic behind moving the pick for a 25 year old top4 RHD.

If you support the current plan of trading high picks for immediate help, then by default you have to be anti-pick, no?

Or are you "simply relaying the plan management has layed out", without saying what you actually think?

What is it with a certain group of posters talking down to the disgruntled fans who are mad about the teams direction?

At least commit to a view if you're going to be condescending.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

If you support the current plan of trading high picks for immediate help, then by default you have to be anti-pick, no?

Or are you "simply relaying the plan management has layed out", without saying what you actually think?

What is it with a certain group of posters talking down to the disgruntled fans who are mad about the teams direction?

At least commit to a view if you're going to be condescending.

I think it was right call yes..There was a giant organizational hole on the RHD..and I believe in supporting and reinforcing our current core group.

That’s a single transaction..Does that make me anti draft ..or anti pick overall..no

If that was the case I’d be clamoring for them to move their other first.

 

[andora]

If you support the current plan of trading high picks for immediate help, then by default you have to be anti-pick, no?

Or are you "simply relaying the plan management has layed out", without saying what you actually think?

What is it with a certain group of posters talking down to the disgruntled fans who are mad about the teams direction?

At least commit to a view if you're going to be condescending.

Does it need to be one or the other?.. canucks get 1 2 or 3.. you take the pick

Outside the top 3 .. can you find the player that will provide the impact needed now and long term versus the picks projection? Then you have a choice.

And if someone is ok trading a 20th overall for help but not ok trading the 4th overall for help - that means they are what? Half assed, or not 'picking' a side?

That doesnt make sense to me when we should all know by now that each decision for a transaction has 15 other elements tied to it

 

[Diogenes92]

I think it was right call yes..There was a giant organizational hole on the RHD..and I believe in supporting and reinforcing our current core group.

That’s a single transaction..Does that make me anti draft ..or anti pick overall..no

If that was the case I’d be clamoring for them to move their other first.

It simply isnt the right time to be moving high picks for help-now players.

Nearly every expert and analyst is saying this. Its only HF Boards that seems to see things on a higher level.

 

[Diogenes92]

Does it need to be one or the other?.. canucks get 1 2 or 3.. you take the pick

Outside the top 3 .. can you find the player that will provide the impact needed now and long term versus the picks projection? Then you have a choice.

And if someone is ok trading a 20th overall for help but not ok trading the 4th overall for help - that means they are what? Half assed, or not 'picking' a side?

That doesnt make sense to me when we should all know by now that each decision for a transaction has 15 other elements tied to it

Option 2, clearly.

As a fan, I'm not very happy with the vibe of the team.

I was proud to be a fan when the Sedins were leading the team.

Now it seems we have a group of immature pouty players. They have accomplished nothing, but have a cocky attitude nonetheless.

 

[Orr4Norris]

Yep. If the Canucks win a draft lottery this year, they should obviously keep the pick, but if the plan is to try to maximize their chances while EP/Quinn/Demko are on the clock then I’d seriously look at trading a pick in the 6-12 range of this draft. A half-assed re-tool is just as bad an option as a half-assed rebuild. The Lekkerimaki pick in hindsight is completely pointless given where management wants to be.

Hughes was our best dman in his D+2. You make the pick and hope to hell you hit it out of the park. It’s pretty close to the only way to add a core piece with no added cap.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Hughes was our best dman in his D+2. You make the pick and hope to hell you hit it out of the park. It’s pretty close to the only way to add a core piece with no added cap.

Ideally I would like to see how the draft shakes out before moving a potential 1st in this draft, I just feel there’s a drop off after the 5th/6th pick. To be clear, it would take a great offer for me personally to move this year’s first, I’d probably be more inclined to move back if it’s in the 8–12 range.

 

[arttk]

Just stop with the “Petey and Hughes won’t stick around”. If the alternative is a middling team with absolutely no hope of winning, that’s not better for them. The excuse was dumb with the Sedins (who had to endure futile losing with veterans instead of losing while rebuilding, supposedly in their name), and it’s nonsense that younger players would be dead set against building a contender if the alternative is a fringe playoff team at best.

Also stop with the “picks won’t make an impact for years”. Even if true (it’s not), that logic means we should simply trade all our picks every year (and also never plant trees while we’re at it). Eventually you get to the years where the lack of a pipeline matters… like right now, for instance. We’ll need the help in a few years too.

The idea that if we tank hard now we’ll be fine in 2-3 years is super optimistic. We would need to hit on a lot it picks for that to be true.

it’s weird to think that one would have more certainty with amateur scouting than pro scouting. Amateur scouting is like x degree less certain than pro scouting.

There is a reason why zero teams have rebuild in 2 seasons.