Management Thread | Who needs draft picks Edition

[racerjoe]

do you think marek just like missed that the canucks want to "retool"? like he's trying to figure out what they're doing from their moves alone?

when people say they don't understand what the canucks are doing they mean they don't see how their actions are going to accomplish their professed goals. they don't need you to repeat management have said. they are just publically doubting they have a plan that is going to accomplish those professed goals

I haven't heard Marek go into more details, so I can't say him specifically, however many here, and many other media personalities yes.

 

[strattonius]

do you think marek just like missed that the canucks want to "retool"? like he's trying to figure out what they're doing from their moves alone?

when people say they don't understand what the canucks are doing they mean they don't see how their actions are going to accomplish their professed goals. they don't need you to repeat management have said. they are just publically doubting they have a plan that is going to accomplish those professed goals

It's a pretty clear retool and build around the big 3.

Trading Horvat would contradict that but not really when they used the assets from that trade and acquired Hronek - they moved salary to different places of the roster. And yes, Myers and OEL occupy about enormous amount of salary on our blueline but we can't exactly change that right now.

Whether our fans agree with their philosophy and direction is a different argument. If you truly can't see what they are trying to do it's just an attempt to add to the hysteria that this is the worst run organization in the NHL. The plan is clear, it's just that we were thrown a curveball to our brains when that Islander pick was flipped.

 

[andora]

it's just a colloquial expression. it's also obtuse to pretend like people saying it are asking whether the canucks are rebuilding or retooling

Not sure why it quoted to that other thread

Just me kind of responding to the marek thing that started this discussion - i dont listen to these podcasts and reports etc.. because much of it is wind

So if it is actually marek saying people dont like what they are doing, or dont agree with how they are doing it.. fine. But if it is people not understanding what they are doing i dont get it..

It's a pretty clear retool and build around the big 3.

Trading Horvat would contradict that but not really when they used the assets from that trade and acquired Hronek - they moved salary to different places of the roster. And yes, Myers and OEL occupy about enormous amount of salary on our blueline but we can't exactly change that right now.

Whether our fans agree with their philosophy and direction is a different argument. If you truly can't see what they are trying to do it's just an attempt to add to the hysteria that this is the worst run organization in the NHL. The plan is clear, it's just that we were thrown a curveball to our brains when that Islander pick was flipped.

Oh yeah.. flipping that first was full on mind f*** for some.. agree with how you worded this

 

[credulous]

So if it is actually marek saying people dont like what they are doing, or dont agree with how they are doing it.. fine. But if it is people not understanding what they are doing i dont get it..

i think what marek is reporting is that other teams around the league don't understand how vancouver are going to make a retool work given how they are going about it

i'm just saying 'vancouver are retooling' isn't an answer to a question anyone is actually asking

 

[arttk]

I would like to clarify that I was disagreeing with pointing to teams that successfully rebuilt as a reason to retool such as the penguins and tampa. Although maybe i just misunderstood why they were brought up.

Those two teams actually did something very different. Pens rebuilt and got a bigger core group but had to retool because they lost a lot of talent, drafting sucked and the stars got PAID leaving them with no cap. They aren’t that dissimilar to where we are at right now, they had like 4 core players and very little prospects and not a lot of cap.

Tampa, they got like 2 core players from their tank years. They built their team over like a 8 year horizon and got most of their core from later round picks while being a playoff team for majority of those years.

The truth is both of those teams and a lot of other teams just built around a very small core of players and continue to add players like 1-2 per year until they had enough to contend.

 

[andora]

i think what marek is reporting is that other teams around the league don't understand how vancouver are going to make a retool work given how they are going about it

i'm just saying 'vancouver are retooling' isn't an answer to a question anyone is actually asking

2nd sentence.. yeah fair

That makes some sense

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Video game shit:

- playing Hughes 30 mins a night
- trading a 1st and a 2nd when you’re 27th place in the league
- continuing to add on more future salary when you’re 27th place in the league

- Pretending like it’s all normal and the people against it are into video game fantasies

Tocchet talking about Hughes playing a lot.

“Hughes has logged 30 minutes on four occasions this season — including twice in the last seven games — and is so wired to win that he does this thing on the bench. He’ll look back at assistant coach Adam Foote with that how-come-I’m-not-out-there? look.

“He’ll look at Footy every once in a while,” said Tocchet. “I like that. But sometimes you’ve got to just tell the guy: ‘Watch the game.’ It’s give and take.” Province ..today.

 

[Nucker101]

Tocchet talking about Hughes playing a lot.

“Hughes has logged 30 minutes on four occasions this season — including twice in the last seven games — and is so wired to win that he does this thing on the bench. He’ll look back at assistant coach Adam Foote with that how-come-I’m-not-out-there? look.

“He’ll look at Footy every once in a while,” said Tocchet. “I like that. But sometimes you’ve got to just tell the guy: ‘Watch the game.’ It’s give and take.” Province ..today.

I’m sure this is far from just exclusive to Hughes league wide

 

[DonnyNucker]

do you think marek just like missed that the canucks want to "retool"? like he's trying to figure out what they're doing from their moves alone?

when people say they don't understand what the canucks are doing they mean they don't see how their actions are going to accomplish their professed goals. they don't need you to repeat management have said. they are just publically doubting they have a plan that is going to accomplish those professed goals

I take anything Marek says with a grain of salt. He is Button level bad. Not saying he is dishonest but he isn’t bright

 

[FlowMaster]

I’m still thinking about how this management is all in for next year relying on dumping at least 2 boat anchor contracts while completely failing to do so last offseason.

“This time is different”

 

[andora]

I’m still thinking about how this management is all in for next year relying on dumping at least 2 boat anchor contracts while completely failing to do so last offseason.

“This time is different”

Well.. one year less of term helps

 

[racerjoe]

Anecdotal. It's not a number based upon a study. I'm looking at the Cap, the players now, the strength they'll need to have to consistently be in the playoffs, the limited assets and the potential type of players they'll need to attain. It is very unlikely that they spend no assets to move cap AND gain enough pro assets within 2 years to create a sustainable playoff team thereafter.





Actually, MS talks specifically about Pettersson and Hughes as the impetus to perform a re-tool. Where as what I'm saying is that core players are always a given when considering a re-tool, but to actually decide to go forth should depend more on the likelihood of its success.





This is not an equal proposition. We are in a rebuild already. A 2 year re-tool is possible, but extremely unlikely given the landscape here. There are just too many factors that have to go right in order to exit, in 2 years, with a consistent playoff team. And by consistent, I mean 5+ years, given the ages of Pettersson and Hughes. And so, it's like comparing the rule (rebuild) to the exception (re-tool). Why are we arguing for the exception?





Can you define how these teams re-tooled and how this is a realistic goal for the Canucks? Just at a glance, Pittsburgh has been in the playoffs for 11 years so...?

Let's isolate Tampa Bay for a moment. They had a 2 year dip out of the playoffs in 2011-12 and 2012-13. In that time, their best FA and Trade acquisitions (because that's the route management is taking here) were as follows:

Ben Bishop
Radko Gudas
Kyle Quincey
Teddy Purcell
Nate Thomspon

If you can find more, please correct me, this is just at a glance.

Now with just judging the quality of that group of players, would you say the Canucks are that far away from a similar 2 year on the fly re-tool? If not, please provide your own example as the template.

The first part of your post is based on false hoods. Yes all winning teams start from a rebuild. The goal of said rebuild is to get your star players (core guys) and set yourself up to succeed. However most rebuilds do fail. We look at successful teams who have rebuilt and point to them and go see it works, because this is how you get your core. But look at that Tamp team, how long from getting there core to being a winner? You said they retooled in 2012-2013, then they still lost in the first round the next year. Before they were a success. After a few seasons at the top they still missed the playoffs again in 2017.

Keep in mind their original build was still going in 2009!

No teams are going to be a like, so providing one to one comparable is pointless on the Tamp thing.

So lets just look at the Canucks.

I think it starts with how you evaluate this team. I don't think we are a team that is in the bottom 3rd of the NHL. I view this as a big outlier, and just as much as the Bruce bump last season.

I think this roster run back is a playoff bubble team, and no that isn't good enough, but it is important to remember where you are starting from. They are a bubble team much like the team was before Gillis got here.

We have a top 5 goaltending... with this year be an exception. Demko before this year posted two straight seasons of 915 goaltending, and with the terrible defense in front of him, so I don't buy that he had the drop he did because of that.

We have no problem with offense. That should also be pretty clear.

We clearly need to upgrade the defense, fix the cap and it would be a bonus to fix the bottom 6 forwards. So lets concentrate on the first two.

We just got Hronek, that is already an absolute huge upgrade. Is it enough? Nope. But the difference from last year to this is large already. It means also we only NEED one more top four guy. This isn't as big of an ask especially when you can probably just look for either a LHD or a RHD. You run with a top four of Hughes, Bear, Hronek, and Blank.

I am just throwing this out there from the rumors we just heard at the deadline. But a trade around Pettersson from Pits makes sense, and compliments Bear really nicely. Or maybe you go FA. Who knows, just throwing something out there.

For the Cap, I don't think we would do it, but buying out OEL makes so much sense. He is at best a 3rd pairing D, his 7.2 against the cap to do this is a 6 mil liability. You buy him out and in the worst years its a 5 mil liability including his replacement. But I don't think the team does it.

I do think Myers gets moved. I do think a Brock Trade finally happens.

While that team probably isn't a contender, that is a team that should absolutely be playoff bound and be thinking second round is the expectation.

 

[Diogenes92]

While that team probably isn't a contender, that is a team that should absolutely be playoff bound and be thinking second round is the expectation.

Where have I seen and heard this type of statement before?

Oh, that's right. At the beginning of this season.

Where did I hear this type of statement before that?

Oh, that's right. For most of Aquilini and Benning's masterclass.

"Should absolutely be" means absolutely nothing when it comes to the Canucks. At some point results matter. Why is this such a foreign concept? Are things so warped in Canuckland that people honestly still believe this "We're easily a playoff team" narrative year after year?

This team has zero merit to live off of. Zero.

When, as fans, can we start demanding results? Is that asking too much?

 

[Hit the post]

When, as fans, can we start demanding results? Is that asking too much?

Jim Benning had a free pass for 7 years. Only the people of Israel have been waiting as long for "him" coming.

 

[racerjoe]

Where have I seen and heard this type of statement before?

Oh, that's right. At the beginning of this season.

Where did I hear this type of statement before that?

Oh, that's right. For most of Aquilini and Benning's masterclass.

"Should absolutely be" means absolutely nothing when it comes to the Canucks. At some point results matter. Why is this such a foreign concept? Are things so warped in Canuckland that people honestly still believe this "We're easily a playoff team" narrative year after year?

This team has zero merit to live off of. Zero.

When, as fans, can we start demanding results? Is that asking too much?

At least you reply unlike other posters who can't reply... because they must by now see they are wrong.

I don't disagree that results matter. Its very true.

When building a team though you need to always understand where the team is and why.

I go back to my statement. Do you think this team was as good as the bruce bump? Results matter right?

Throw out any benning statement you make. Its ridiculous and makes your point worse. I am sure if I looked and really wanted I could find a Benning quote that sounds like something Yzerman said or some other GM. Benning was terrible... you agreed to this before. Anything that man did was going to turn to crap. He couldn't accomplish anything because he was bad at his job.

So evaluate this team. Today. Do you think they if we played this season again, they would be in the bottom 3rd of the NHL? There is no wrong answer here as it is everyone's own evaluation. Again while I applaud you having your own and not backing out of a conversation when you have no answers but to try and mock someone.

This team with average goaltending is flirting with the playoffs. It just is. That isn't a very good team. I would agree with that, but thats what league average is. Its a flawed team.

 

[Diogenes92]

At least you reply unlike other posters who can't reply... because they must by now see they are wrong.

I don't disagree that results matter. Its very true.

When building a team though you need to always understand where the team is and why.

I go back to my statement. Do you think this team was as good as the bruce bump? Results matter right?

Throw out any benning statement you make. Its ridiculous and makes your point worse. I am sure if I looked and really wanted I could find a Benning quote that sounds like something Yzerman said or some other GM. Benning was terrible... you agreed to this before. Anything that man did was going to turn to crap. He couldn't accomplish anything because he was bad at his job.

So evaluate this team. Today. Do you think they if we played this season again, they would be in the bottom 3rd of the NHL? There is no wrong answer here as it is everyone's own evaluation. Again while I applaud you having your own and not backing out of a conversation when you have no answers but to try and mock someone.

This team with average goaltending is flirting with the playoffs. It just is. That isn't a very good team. I would agree with that, but thats what league average is. Its a flawed team.

If you paid attention to my posts you'd know that I am a big proponent of early season success--which continues with some inevitable ups and downs throughout the season--as a measuring stick of a playoff or contending team.

The Boudreau bump was a classic example of the new coach bump. Nothing more. He was literally fired barely a year after being hired. That reeks of a badly constructed team playing well under a new coach.

Year after year the Canucks start slow and often end strong after they've all but been mathematically eliminated. Garbage time. Look no further than this year as a shining example of this.

I don't give a damn what the Canucks do for the rest of the season. The only thing that matters will be how badly they screw up their draft position.

Nothing else will have any implication on next years start, when the pressure of a full season ahead of the team is at its highest. This is when the hope and expectations of fans and media are at their peak.

If this same team played the season again with the new coach bump from Tochett, I believe they'd have more points as a direct result of that, but not enough to make a big difference.

I'd guess that they finish 18th to 20th next year. Their D-core (Myers in top 4) and forward depth (Dries at 3C) is simply 'not there' yet.

We saw the team miss the playoffs when Demko played Vezina level for 50+ games. This "goaltending is the root cause of the teams woes" argument that some people are making is a complete and utter cop-out. Poor Martin and Delia for being thrown to the wolves when they should never have been put in the position they were in.

I predict that the Canucks still miss the playoffs next year, barring--as I said yesterday--a miracle off-season that completely changes the complexion of the team.

I would love to be proven wrong, but the last decade has taught me to be pessimistic as a Canucks fan.

 

[racerjoe]

If you paid attention to my posts you'd know that I am a big proponent of early season success--which continues with some inevitable ups and downs throughout the season--as a measuring stick of a playoff or contending team.

The Boudreau bump was a classic example of the new coach bump. Nothing more. He was literally fired barely a year after being hired. That reeks of a badly constructed team playing well under a new coach.

Year after year the Canucks start slow and often end strong after they've all but been mathematically eliminated. Garbage time. Look no further than this year as a shining example of this.

I don't give a damn what the Canucks do for the rest of the season. The only thing that matters will be how badly they screw up their draft position.

Nothing else will have any implication on next years start, when the pressure of a full season ahead of the team is at its highest. This is when the hope and expectations of fans and media are at their peak.

If this same team played the season again with the new coach bump from Tochett, I believe they'd have more points as a direct result of that, but not enough to make a big difference.

I'd guess that they finish 18th to 20th next year. Their D-core (Myers in top 4) and forward depth (Dries at 3C) is simply 'not there' yet.

We saw the team miss the playoffs when Demko played Vezina level for 50+ games. This "goaltending is the root cause of the teams woes" argument that some people are making is a complete and utter cop-out. Poor Martin and Delia for being thrown to the wolves when they should never have been put in the position they were in.

I predict that the Canucks still miss the playoffs next year, barring--as I said yesterday--a miracle off-season that completely changes the complexion of the team.

I would love to be proven wrong, but the last decade has taught me to be pessimistic as a Canucks fan.

Weird take since in the last 5 season the Canucks have started their first 20 with records of 10-7-3, 10-8-2, 8-11-1, and 6-12-2. The 8-11 year was the bubble year by the way.

Would Myers be top for? I think you would run Bear and Hronek as your top 2 RHD.

You are correct about the bottom 6, not just Dries at 3C.

But this is what an average team would be, and I would expect them to be 10-20, in that middle area. Probably closer to 14-18.

Not directed at you, but isn't it funny that one poster here can't even reply...

 

[Diogenes92]

Weird take since in the last 5 season the Canucks have started their first 20 with records of 10-7-3, 10-8-2, 8-11-1, and 6-12-2. The 8-11 year was the bubble year by the way.

Would Myers be top for? I think you would run Bear and Hronek as your top 2 RHD.

You are correct about the bottom 6, not just Dries at 3C.

But this is what an average team would be, and I would expect them to be 10-20, in that middle area. Probably closer to 14-18.

Not directed at you, but isn't it funny that one poster here can't even reply...

First 30 games is more of an unbiased measuring stick for playoff qualification. 20 games just isn't enough of a sample size.

Don't even start with the 'Bubble Year' asterisk playoff stuff. It was a twilight zone moment that fooled ownership into believing this team was close to a cup. We've seen the results.

Myers has been getting played 20 minutes recently. That's top 4 minutes.

Bear is a #5 at best. Decent 3rd pair guy on a good team.

 

[racerjoe]

First 30 games is more of an unbiased measuring stick for playoff qualification. 20 games just isn't enough of a sample size.

Don't even start with the 'Bubble Year' asterisk playoff stuff. It was a twilight zone moment that fooled ownership into believing this team was close to a cup. We've seen the results.

Myers has been getting played 20 minutes recently. That's top 4 minutes.

Bear is a #5 at best. Decent 3rd pair guy on a good team.

My point with the bubble year is it was one of the worst starts, yet their best finish.

If the season is replayed I think Bear gets those top 4 mins. I agree I think he is best suited as a number five, but we currently don't have that luxury.

 

[mossey3535]

This is more than garbage time. People act like the first 40 games is all pressure packed. It's not. For everyone there are long stretches of what seem like meaningless games. If a team is firmly in the playoffs or firmly out of it sure there might be some pressure relief. For those chasing a wildcard or trying to maintain 3rd on their division its definitely not.

The team right now is playing hockey in a different way. We haven't seen play this sound since AV. In previous years like under Bruce it was more that the team played maximum effort but they didn't play differently.

The fact is we are playing with a lineup they is worse on paper but on the ice can keep up with the likes of BOS, TOR, DAL, and nyr. They've just played the same solid way against too many teams in too many different circumstances. Like this isn't them showing up one game and then not showing up the next like what would happen under Green and Bruce. They are actually building consistency, and it's around sustainable team defence.

 

[Diogenes92]

This is more than garbage time. People act like the first 40 games is all pressure packed. It's not. For everyone there are long stretches of what seem like meaningless games. If a team is firmly in the playoffs or firmly out of it sure there might be some pressure relief. For those chasing a wildcard or trying to maintain 3rd on their division its definitely not.

The team right now is playing hockey in a different way. We haven't seen play this sound since AV. In previous years like under Bruce it was more that the team played maximum effort but they didn't play differently.

The fact is we are playing with a lineup they is worse on paper but on the ice can keep up with the likes of BOS, TOR, DAL, and nyr. They've just played the same solid way against too many teams in too many different circumstances. Like this isn't them showing up one game and then not showing up the next like what would happen under Green and Bruce. They are actually building consistency, and it's around sustainable team defence.

It is garbage time. Sorry to burst your bubble.

We've seen this team play well year after year when they're already out of the playoff hunt. Its nothing new. Add in the new coach bump and its no surprise that the team is playing much much better.

Nearly every one of the pessimistic rebuild crowd (yep, that includes me) predicted this would happen.

If they can play well to start next year and remain somewhat consistent for the first 25+ games, then I'll be happy to change my tune.

 

[CherryToke]

They've stopped playing soft weiner Horvat style hockey at least. Lets see how long they can keep that going..

 

[andora]

One of the changes is they are far more active in protecting their crease.. nowhere near a pack mentality yet but it is there

That is an encouraging sign

 

[Bubbles]

It is garbage time. Sorry to burst your bubble.

We've seen this team play well year after year when they're already out of the playoff hunt. Its nothing new. Add in the new coach bump and its no surprise that the team is playing much much better.

Nearly every one of the pessimistic rebuild crowd (yep, that includes me) predicted this would happen.

If they can play well to start next year and remain somewhat consistent for the first 25+ games, then I'll be happy to change my tune.

100% agree. They always play better when there's nothing to play for. I don't know how many times this has happened but casuals are always distracted by a new coach bump or some other distraction.

Just as predicted, they are winning games when it's absolutely meaningless and detrimental to a higher pick.

Casuals will always eat up the slop. They're more focused on Kuz's banana fetish than actual team performance.

I've been coining the term "team dysmorphia" to the Canucks. It's a condition where someone believes the Canucks are actually better than the record they have.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The first part of your post is based on false hoods. Yes all winning teams start from a rebuild. The goal of said rebuild is to get your star players (core guys) and set yourself up to succeed. However most rebuilds do fail. We look at successful teams who have rebuilt and point to them and go see it works, because this is how you get your core. But look at that Tamp team, how long from getting there core to being a winner? You said they retooled in 2012-2013, then they still lost in the first round the next year. Before they were a success. After a few seasons at the top they still missed the playoffs again in 2017.

Keep in mind their original build was still going in 2009!

No teams are going to be a like, so providing one to one comparable is pointless on the Tamp thing.

So lets just look at the Canucks.

I think it starts with how you evaluate this team. I don't think we are a team that is in the bottom 3rd of the NHL. I view this as a big outlier, and just as much as the Bruce bump last season.

I think this roster run back is a playoff bubble team, and no that isn't good enough, but it is important to remember where you are starting from. They are a bubble team much like the team was before Gillis got here.

We have a top 5 goaltending... with this year be an exception. Demko before this year posted two straight seasons of 915 goaltending, and with the terrible defense in front of him, so I don't buy that he had the drop he did because of that.

We have no problem with offense. That should also be pretty clear.

We clearly need to upgrade the defense, fix the cap and it would be a bonus to fix the bottom 6 forwards. So lets concentrate on the first two.

We just got Hronek, that is already an absolute huge upgrade. Is it enough? Nope. But the difference from last year to this is large already. It means also we only NEED one more top four guy. This isn't as big of an ask especially when you can probably just look for either a LHD or a RHD. You run with a top four of Hughes, Bear, Hronek, and Blank.

I am just throwing this out there from the rumors we just heard at the deadline. But a trade around Pettersson from Pits makes sense, and compliments Bear really nicely. Or maybe you go FA. Who knows, just throwing something out there.

For the Cap, I don't think we would do it, but buying out OEL makes so much sense. He is at best a 3rd pairing D, his 7.2 against the cap to do this is a 6 mil liability. You buy him out and in the worst years its a 5 mil liability including his replacement. But I don't think the team does it.

I do think Myers gets moved. I do think a Brock Trade finally happens.

While that team probably isn't a contender, that is a team that should absolutely be playoff bound and be thinking second round is the expectation.

Ok, let's clarify the discussion here a bit:

The key decision point for a re-tool is the likelihood it can be successful, even with Pettersson, Hughes and Demko in place. Given their cap, contracts, needs, timeline and assets... it's going to be very difficult.

For Tampa: I was a bit presumptive here. What I did was take your proclamation that 4 teams were able to re-tool quickly, and I had applied it to Tampa's history. Clearly, there was a much stronger base there than it is here.

For the Canucks: The first place to start is their 5 year record: They rank 24 of 32 teams with points accrued: NHL Stats

And so, no matter how close you feel they are versus how far I think they are, that has to be acknowledged first. Then, we evaluate Horvat out Hronek in, as well as the impact of normalized goaltending.

I will remind though, that being on the bubble in 2021-22 does not a consistent playoff performer make. We know the goal isn't to win a cup here, it's just to create a consistent playoff team. Therefore, I would consider a successful re-tool something that places us within the playoffs for 5+ years. Do you believe the odds are good that this happens given everything we know above?