Toggle sidebar

Management Thread | Who needs draft picks Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Canucks LB said:
I truly don’t think anybody would pick him up
Click to expand...
Then that is pretty awful. For as much crap as the Miller signing gets he will get a lot of interest this summer. If we can’t even dump Boeser for free on waivers that’s a disaster
 
wavaxa2 said:
I really don't get why they had to rush into the Hronek deal. They aren't competing this year, and draft picks are worth less at the deadline and more near the draft. If you are going to be trading picks for players, create a bidding war and get more value for your assets, especially in a strong draft like this year. Picking up a defenseman at the deadline just seems to be unduly impatient to me.
Click to expand...
The answer to this is either:

A) Fear the Islanders pick would decline in value (which it has since the trade). Not that this is a likely outcome but the Horvat trade would be disastrous if the Islanders actually managed to win a couple of rounds.
B) They were afraid a contending team would swoop in and grab him.
C) They really value this player and if you have a player available at a price you like you shouldn't get cute with it.

If he turns out to be as good as they expect him to be I don't think anyone is going to give a f*** that they maybe overextended.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: geebaan, racerjoe, JohnHodgson and 4 others
Josepho said:
The answer to this is either:

A) Fear the Islanders pick would decline in value (which it has since the trade).
B) They were afraid a contending team would swoop in and grab him.
C) They really value this player and if you have a player available at a price you like you shouldn't get cute with it.

If he turns out to be as good as they expect him to be I don't think anyone is going to give a f*** that they maybe overextended.
Click to expand...
Very true. I’m just still trying to get over how bad Benning was at trading high value picks for mistakes. So will need t build confidence the new management people will evaluate talent better, and not waste our picks.
 
i have to admit the possibility the isles go on a run had not entered my calculus on the hronek deal. if that happens, i will have to online apologize for all my rantings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flik and JohnHodgson
krutovsdonut said:
i have to admit the possibility the isles go on a run had not entered my calculus on the hronek deal. if that happens, i will have to online apologize for all my rantings.
Click to expand...
It's definitely unlikely, but I saw a ton of people arguing that we should've added some sort of protection/condition to the pick when you can just as easily argue Detroit should've done the same. It probably balances out in the end.
 
Josepho said:
It's definitely unlikely, but I saw a ton of people arguing that we should've added some sort of protection/condition to the pick when you can just as easily argue Detroit should've done the same. It probably balances out in the end.
Click to expand...

isles making the playoffs is fine for the wings. still a top 20 pick likely 16 or 17. isles making it to the ecf would make rutherford/allvin look like geniuses.

unrelated question, but in looking at the nhl draft rules, does anyone know why regular season division winners are punished in the draft order? even if they go out in the first round they potentially draft later than other teams which win a round and may have had more regular season points.
 
krutovsdonut said:
isles making the playoffs is fine for the wings. still a top 20 pick likely 16 or 17. isles making it to the ecf would make rutherford/allvin look like geniuses.

unrelated question, but in looking at the nhl draft rules, does anyone know why regular season division winners are punished in the draft order? even if they go out in the first round they potentially draft later than other teams which win a round and may have had more regular season points.
Click to expand...
Because when that rule came up on the agenda they were already running behind and it was only 20 minutes until lunch
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flik and krutovsdonut
Josepho said:
The answer to this is either:

A) Fear the Islanders pick would decline in value (which it has since the trade). Not that this is a likely outcome but the Horvat trade would be disastrous if the Islanders actually managed to win a couple of rounds.
B) They were afraid a contending team would swoop in and grab him.
C) They really value this player and if you have a player available at a price you like you shouldn't get cute with it.

If he turns out to be as good as they expect him to be I don't think anyone is going to give a f*** that they maybe overextended.
Click to expand...

D) Detroit changes their mind and wants to keep their player.
E) Potentially get in a bidding war with teams in the offseason

I'm not sure why people keep saying: why didn't we just wait till the draft?

As if there aren't 30 other teams that could be involved in this transaction. There's absolutely no guarantees that a player available for a given price today will be the same six months down the road. People think this is NHL 23 or something?

Canucks LB said:
I truly don’t think anybody would pick him up
Click to expand...

Probably not.

He's going to need retention. $1.6M retained to open up $5M cap space and get assets back. I'm ok with this.
 
Bleach Clean said:
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?
Click to expand...

Few points here, looking at their five year record is pointless. Yes it tells you we have been a crap team. But there has been turnover, all over the organization. While the past can be a great way to predict the future, it still needs to be based on more than what we have.

We need to ask where is the team now. That is the only question we really should be talking about.

No need to remind being a bubble team isn't good enough. That is just simply a starting point instead of using your 24th place team.

When talking about likelihood, there is more to it than your simplicity. Again what is the likelihood the team would draft players as good as Hughes and Petterson? What are the chances the canucks would come out of a rebuild able to compete? Where do those odds stack up versus actually turning this around?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 4Twenty
racerjoe said:
Few points here, looking at their five year record is pointless. Yes it tells you we have been a crap team. But there has been turnover, all over the organization. While the past can be a great way to predict the future, it still needs to be based on more than what we have.

We need to ask where is the team now. That is the only question we really should be talking about.

No need to remind being a bubble team isn't good enough. That is just simply a starting point instead of using your 24th place team.

When talking about likelihood, there is more to it than your simplicity. Again what is the likelihood the team would draft players as good as Hughes and Petterson? What are the chances the canucks would come out of a rebuild able to compete? Where do those odds stack up versus actually turning this around?
Click to expand...

Racerjoe, I respect your opinion, but the past has to form the basis for evaluation. Without acknowledging first where they've been, we cannot understand where they need to go. As well, we should be able to reference a 2 year re-tool somewhere. Again, to see how it was achieved.

I've got no issue adding more complexity to that base understanding once it's been established. In fact, I would look forward to it.

To your ending point: There's a rebuild with and without Pettersson + Hughes. Unfortunately, we have to use a modified definition of a rebuild or re-tool here because normally, a team wouldn't be in the position of having 2-3 core players and little else around them, but here we are.... The decision point is still what needs to be done around them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4Twenty
Bleach Clean said:
Racerjoe, I respect your opinion, but the past has to form the basis for evaluation. Without acknowledging first where they've been, we cannot understand where they need to go. As well, we should be able to reference a 2 year re-tool somewhere. Again, to see how it was achieved.

I've got no issue adding more complexity to that base understanding once it's been established. In fact, I would look forward to it.

To your ending point: There's a rebuild with and without Pettersson + Hughes. Unfortunately, we have to use a modified definition of a rebuild or re-tool here because normally, a team wouldn't be in the position of having 2-3 core players and little else around them, but here we are.... The decision point is still what needs to be done around them.
Click to expand...

To your second point... If we decide to prolong anything it is strictly without them. Both have pretty much stated that.

There is two issues with looking back that far in this and sometimes other cases. First it completely puts too high a value on any moves Benning has done. Benning teams have too high of a weighted significance looking at that. That is always my biggest disagreement with people here currently. Nothing Benning did should cloud your judgement on if this management team can or can't. Make no mistake here I am not saying this management can, just don't say well benning made moves similar. That doesn't mean anything.

From that understanding alone it changes the evaluation. Looking at the Canucks history, Should we have doubted Gillis because Nonis proved to no be able to get this team over the hump? Should we have believed in Benning because Gillis got this team to within 1 game of winning the cup? No we shouldn't.

We should just ask where is this team right now.
 
JohnHodgson said:
D) Detroit changes their mind and wants to keep their player.
E) Potentially get in a bidding war with teams in the offseason

I'm not sure why people keep saying: why didn't we just wait till the draft?

As if there aren't 30 other teams that could be involved in this transaction. There's absolutely no guarantees that a player available for a given price today will be the same six months down the road. People think this is NHL 23 or something?



Probably not.

He's going to need retention. $1.6M retained to open up $5M cap space and get assets back. I'm ok with this.
Click to expand...
No thanks on retaining on Boeser
 
racerjoe said:
To your second point... If we decide to prolong anything it is strictly without them. Both have pretty much stated that.

There is two issues with looking back that far in this and sometimes other cases. First it completely puts too high a value on any moves Benning has done. Benning teams have too high of a weighted significance looking at that. That is always my biggest disagreement with people here currently. Nothing Benning did should cloud your judgement on if this management team can or can't. Make no mistake here I am not saying this management can, just don't say well benning made moves similar. That doesn't mean anything.

From that understanding alone it changes the evaluation. Looking at the Canucks history, Should we have doubted Gillis because Nonis proved to no be able to get this team over the hump? Should we have believed in Benning because Gillis got this team to within 1 game of winning the cup? No we shouldn't.

We should just ask where is this team right now.
Click to expand...


To understand: You're saying that we cannot isolate the last 5 years on-ice performance, to gauge the strength of the team because Benning managed 4 of those 5 years? This is the best way to gauge the level of the team. Actually, if you were to take this year alone so far, they are 25th overall, while their 5 year ranking is 24th...

For a 2 year re-tool reference, I'm open to other examples around the league. It need not be isolated to the Canucks and Benning.

Last, prolonging anything does not mean you're losing Pettersson. His staying or going does not hinge upon 2 years. The earliest he can re-sign him is this offseason. Therefore, if he wants out, he can say so immediately. Likewise, if a re-tool is successful for 3 years and then drops off, he can ask out then too. Meaning, in either case, Pettersson has to accept the long-term vision of the team in order to stay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast
Bleach Clean said:
To understand: You're saying that we cannot isolate the last 5 years on-ice performance, to gauge the strength of the team because Benning managed 4 of those 5 years? This is the best way to gauge the level of the team. Actually, if you were to take this year alone so far, they are 25th overall, while their 5 year ranking is 24th...

For a 2 year re-tool reference, I'm open to other examples around the league. It need not be isolated to the Canucks and Benning.

Last, prolonging anything does not mean you're losing Pettersson. His staying or going does not hinge upon 2 years. The earliest he can re-sign him is this offseason. Therefore, if he wants out, he can say so immediately. Likewise, if a re-tool is successful for 3 years and then drops off, he can ask out then too. Meaning, in either case, Pettersson has to accept the long-term vision of the team in order to stay.
Click to expand...

Look at the 2011 team... should Nonis's results change what the team was under Benning?

Did Benning ever give this team a chance to win with his management? Maybe 1 year.

Do you expect the same results for the Canadians under Kent as you would have with Bergievin?

You want a two year rebuild... how about Rutherford with the Pens... (I don't expect that here... but it fits)
 
Diogenes92 said:
Anybody who knows this team well will know that the Canucks having late-season garbage-time success under a new coach should not be used as proof that they're finally figuring things out for next season.
Click to expand...
Most people do get this but management and ownership sadly don't and won't any time soon.

Rinse and repeat, different clowns but the same ringmaster for the circus that is our Vancouver Canucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diogenes92
Diogenes92 said:
Anybody who knows this team well will know that the Canucks having late-season garbage-time success under a new coach should not be used as proof that they're finally figuring things out for next season.
Click to expand...

Honest question is this true? It happened once before with the Bruce bump sure. We don't know if this is sustained or not, and before that I think you need to go back to Crawford and that was sustained.
 
Finding ways to clear cap is going to be interesting/scary, more the latter. I do feel next years 1st is gone
 
andora said:
Outside of dumping OEL none of the other deals warrant that

:edit i should clarify i dont think they are dumping him this offseason
Click to expand...
2nd? Somethings gotta give, they need to shed salary and everyone in the league knows it
 
Vancast was talking like they knew we were going to buyout OEL. I still can't believe it even though it would be best, but just can't seen FAQ doing it.
 
Bleach Clean said:
To understand: You're saying that we cannot isolate the last 5 years on-ice performance, to gauge the strength of the team because Benning managed 4 of those 5 years? This is the best way to gauge the level of the team. Actually, if you were to take this year alone so far, they are 25th overall, while their 5 year ranking is 24th...
Click to expand...

I mean, yes pretty much? It's like people are forgetting how bad Benning was. With the lead feeding us top picks and and landing his one impact pro roster trade for Miller the Canucks climbed to a peak of being able to make the playoffs. The covid year made it iffy, but it got them in and they did well enough. Then just like in 2015 Benning did Benning and tanked the team. Following that with one last change his go to move was to keep Travis Green and go all in on OEL.

This is less about whether or not the team is actually capable of turning around and more that Benning's terribleness was instrumental in keeping the team poor. Going through the ELC's of Pettersson and Hughes with Horvat, Boeser, Demko, etc, on the team something good could have been built had the team been managed competently. Instead it was continuing to live with his past mistakes in Eriksson, Sutter, with more piled on as he continued blow money on Beagle Roussel, Ferlander, Myers, Holtby, and so on. You could swap Pettersson and Hughes with MacKinnon and Makar and the team would still be bad under Benning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: racerjoe and arttk
Bleach Clean said:
To understand: You're saying that we cannot isolate the last 5 years on-ice performance, to gauge the strength of the team because Benning managed 4 of those 5 years? This is the best way to gauge the level of the team. Actually, if you were to take this year alone so far, they are 25th overall, while their 5 year ranking is 24th...

For a 2 year re-tool reference, I'm open to other examples around the league. It need not be isolated to the Canucks and Benning.

Last, prolonging anything does not mean you're losing Pettersson. His staying or going does not hinge upon 2 years. The earliest he can re-sign him is this offseason. Therefore, if he wants out, he can say so immediately. Likewise, if a re-tool is successful for 3 years and then drops off, he can ask out then too. Meaning, in either case, Pettersson has to accept the long-term vision of the team in order to stay.
Click to expand...
That’s like saying Biden is going to do the same shit as Trump simply because Trump is his predecessor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: racerjoe
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom