Management Thread | Who needs draft picks Edition

[Just A Bit Outside]

Papier-mâché.

This team is the absolute shit papier-mâché “build” your kid made in grade 2 that you have to act like is the best thing in the world.

It should be thrown in the bin immediately but you keep it around for sentimental value.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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)

It fits how? Please outline the years in particular, the strength of the team pre re-tool, during the re-tool and post re-tool.

I'm really not sure what point is being made with the isolation of the GMs? The on-ice performance over a few years is what I think is needed to gauge the strength of the team. Do you disagree with that? If so, why? (Without going into what the GMs did, or didn't do during that span).

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

This is going way off from the point, IMO. I'm just looking at the numbers to assert the strength of the team. They were 24th over a 5 year span under a terrible manager. Ok, but they're 25th now under kinda better managers? The team isn't demonstrably different in either case.

One could give Allvin more of the benefit of the doubt as to where they go from here, sure, but what they are now is reasonably clear, right?

That’s like saying Biden is going to do the same shit as Trump simply because Trump is his predecessor.

It has nothing to do with whether you think Allvin will do better than what Benning will do.

 

[racerjoe]

It fits how? Please outline the years in particular, the strength of the team pre re-tool, during the re-tool and post re-tool.

I'm really not sure what point is being made with the isolation of the GMs? The on-ice performance over a few years is what I think is needed to gauge the strength of the team. Do you disagree with that? If so, why? (Without going into what the GMs did, or didn't do during that span).

It fits your two year rebuild you asked for... like perfectly.

How do you not understand the isolation of GM's?

 

[Bleach Clean]

It fits your two year rebuild you asked for... like perfectly.

How do you not understand the isolation of GM's?

Frankly, isolating GMs is irrelevant to gauging actual team performance over a given sample. If the Canucks had Steve Yzerman helming them for the last 5 years, and their record placed them 24th overall, they'd still be a 24th overall team in terms of strength. It's what they did that matters, not who led them.

How does PIT fit the 2 year re-tool? What years are you isolating? I'm looking to see your rationale as to why you think they represent something the Canucks can reasonably achieve.

 

[racerjoe]

Frankly, isolating GMs is irrelevant to gauging actual team performance over a given sample. If the Canucks had Steve Yzerman helming them for the last 5 years, and their record placed them 24th overall, they'd still be a 24th overall team in terms of strength. It's what they did that matters, not who led them.

How does PIT fit the 2 year re-tool? What years are you isolating? I'm looking to see your rationale as to why you think they represent something the Canucks can reasonably achieve.

If we had Yzerman for 5 years and were 24th, and he was still our GM... sure yep. If we had Yzerman for five years and then had a new GM for a year and a half not really.

This is more prevalent when your GM was Jim Benning.

I mean JR was hired 2014 and they won in 2016. When he remade the bottom 6 brought in Kessel, and remade the defense.

 

[Diogenes92]

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.

Once before?

This team did this at least twice during the Benning regime. Possibly 3 times if I remember correctly.

To be clear, the thing that bothers me the most about these last chunk of the season winning binges is the draft position being messed up.

17/18 last 10 games, 18/19 last 12 games.

Canadian division they went above .500 wins in the final 8 games to jump up a couple spots and fall to 9th if I remember correctly. OEL was the result.

Bruce bump was historical in terms of ruining draft position. Lekkerimaki looking to be a dud as of now.

At this point I expect what could have potentially been a top 6 pick turn into a 9-13 pick.

They will likely finish strong again, talk a big game come pre-season, and then fail hard when teams are actually taking them seriously at the beginning of the year.

 

[andora]

2nd? Somethings gotta give, they need to shed salary and everyone in the league knows it

I dont even think that much.. working some scenarios and depending on who they can Target and or trade for and or draft High we could get by with retaining on Myers and even on boeser

If we had Yzerman for 5 years and were 24th, and he was still our GM... sure yep. If we had Yzerman for five years and then had a new GM for a year and a half not really.

This is more prevalent when your GM was Jim Benning.

I mean JR was hired 2014 and they won in 2016. When he remade the bottom 6 brought in Kessel, and remade the defense.

Disagree with the first part - it can take years cleaning up. Dubas and the prospect pool is a perfect example

 

[RandV]

This is going way off from the point, IMO. I'm just looking at the numbers to assert the strength of the team. They were 24th over a 5 year span under a terrible manager. Ok, but they're 25th now under kinda better managers? The team isn't demonstrably different in either case.

One could give Allvin more of the benefit of the doubt as to where they go from here, sure, but what they are now is reasonably clear, right?

For cap space wastage Boeser's contract is on new management, but otherwise we still have $9.25M on the IR with Ferland/Pearson/Poolman. We have $2.4M dead cap in buyouts to Holtby and Virtanen. Including Dickinson, there's $21M cap hit being spent on him, OEL, Myers, and Garland.

Let's create an alternate universe where Benning didn't get one last chance, didn't get to extend sign Poolman then sign & trade for Dickinson, and didn't get to exchange his prior wasted cap space on expiring contracts with the 9th overal pick for OEL and Garland. You think the Canucks would still be in 25th place right now with fewer mistakes and a good $15M (or however much) extra cap space to play with last summer?

 

[Hit the post]

Finding ways to clear cap is going to be interesting/scary, more the latter. I do feel next years 1st is gone

What team would want OEL's toxic contract for a 1st? Canucks aren't horribly bad enough to be serious contenders to have a high chance at the top pick (which is still only a chance with the lottery). Especially when dumping him means the Canucks can use up that freed up cap space to sign a MAJOR free agent acquisition who could actually be useful.

It's not like Eriksson with only one year left on a front loaded contract. Look at what OEL makes in cash next season and the next. Teams like Arizona would have zero interest in that,

IMHO.

 

[arttk]

It has nothing to do with whether you think Allvin will do better than what Benning will do.

They have replaced 12 players so far and will probably changed 4-5 more in this off season. It’s going to be like a completely different team. I don’t quite get how you can project the performance of what is essentially a different team based on past history.

 

[andora]

They have replaced 12 players so far and will probably changed 4-5 more in this off season. It’s going to be like a completely different team. I don’t quite get how you can project the performance of what is essentially a different team based on past history.

Because its easy

 

[racerjoe]

Once before?

This team did this at least twice during the Benning regime. Possibly 3 times if I remember correctly.

To be clear, the thing that bothers me the most about these last chunk of the season winning binges is the draft position being messed up.

17/18 last 10 games, 18/19 last 12 games.

Canadian division they went above .500 wins in the final 8 games to jump up a couple spots and fall to 9th if I remember correctly. OEL was the result.

Bruce bump was historical in terms of ruining draft position. Lekkerimaki looking to be a dud as of now.

At this point I expect what could have potentially been a top 6 pick turn into a 9-13 pick.

They will likely finish strong again, talk a big game come pre-season, and then fail hard when teams are actually taking them seriously at the beginning of the year.

You missed what I was replying to. I was replying to the fact the Canucks always get the end of season new coach bump, and it proves unsustainable the next year.

 

[Diogenes92]

You missed what I was replying to. I was replying to the fact the Canucks always get the end of season new coach bump, and it proves unsustainable the next year.

You missed the point of what I was trying to say.

End of season success does not translate to early season success the following year.

The Canucks are the perfect example of this.

The ruining of draft picks is just another frustrating symptom of this somewhat odd trend.

 

[racerjoe]

You missed the point of what I was trying to say.

End of season success does not translate to early season success the following year.

The Canucks are the perfect example of this.

The ruining of draft picks is just another frustrating symptom of this somewhat odd trend.

I didn't miss it, it just wasn't what we were talking about.

I don't agree or disagree with your point. It just has nothing to do with what the OP was talking about, and nothing to do with what I was asking.

 

[RebuildinVan]

What team would want OEL's toxic contract for a 1st? Canucks aren't horribly bad enough to be serious contenders to have a high chance at the top pick (which is still only a chance with the lottery). Especially when dumping him means the Canucks can use up that freed up cap space to sign a MAJOR free agent acquisition who could actually be useful.

It's not like Eriksson with only one year left on a front loaded contract. Look at what OEL makes in cash next season and the next. Teams like Arizona would have zero interest in that,

IMHO.

I never said OEL BTW, were stuck with that disaster until the buyout

 

[RandV]

You missed what I was replying to. I was replying to the fact the Canucks always get the end of season new coach bump, and it proves unsustainable the next year.

Seriously though I find this getting kind of ridiculous. Yes it happened last year. Considering how few coaches we've had in recent memory, late season bump is one thing but due to a new coach that's one time. Now on here you have numerous posts complaining about Canuck fans being optimistic about the 'late season bump'... yet look around, who's actually saying that here?

The whole 'why aren't they losing every game!!!' thing at the end of the year is dumb. As if the NHL is going to turn into South Parks little league summer baseball episode for the non-playoff teams. The Canucks got as low as they did in the standings because they were on an extended losing skid. Now they're catching up because they're on a winning stretch. And not their 1st one of the season, the Canucks briefly put themselves in playoff contention earlier after an 8-0-2 (or something like that) stretch. If you zoom out and look at the big picture a team's season is going to be made up of these up and down stretches. Heck with a clear bottom 9 right now, 5 of the teams in the past 10 games have improved their records.

This fan griping over winning games late in the season when not in a playoff position is just something I'll never understand.

 

[Josepho]

Seriously though I find this getting kind of ridiculous. Yes it happened last year. Considering how few coaches we've had in recent memory, late season bump is one thing but due to a new coach that's one time. Now on here you have numerous posts complaining about Canuck fans being optimistic about the 'late season bump'... yet look around, who's actually saying that here?

The whole 'why aren't they losing every game!!!' thing at the end of the year is dumb. As if the NHL is going to turn into South Parks little league summer baseball episode for the non-playoff teams. The Canucks got as low as they did in the standings because they were on an extended losing skid. Now they're catching up because they're on a winning stretch. And not their 1st one of the season, the Canucks briefly put themselves in playoff contention earlier after an 8-0-2 (or something like that) stretch. If you zoom out and look at the big picture a team's season is going to be made up of these up and down stretches. Heck with a clear bottom 9 right now, 5 of the teams in the past 10 games have improved their records.

This fan griping over winning games late in the season when not in a playoff position is just something I'll never understand.

I mean, I don't even know if last year was a Boudreau thing as much as it was an "Anyone but Green and Benning" thing. And the main thing that changed with the regime change is that now Pettersson is playing with a pulse and Hughes has clearly upped his game. Tocchet is probably gonna be better than Boudreau, but the main reasons anyone would project this team to improve significantly would have to do with having competent goaltending and a (hopefully) revamped defence.

As an aside I'm floored that a lot of people seem to think that the reason the Canucks have been awful over the past decade is "not drafting high enough".

 

[Diogenes92]

I didn't miss it, it just wasn't what we were talking about.

I don't agree or disagree with your point. It just has nothing to do with what the OP was talking about, and nothing to do with what I was asking.

Cherrypicking a specific part of my argument without considering what I am actually arguing for is a pointless exercise in futility and is disingenuous.

 

[RandV]

I mean, I don't even know if last year was a Boudreau thing as much as it was an "Anyone but Green and Benning" thing. And the main thing that changed with the regime change is that now Pettersson is playing with a pulse and Hughes has clearly upped his game. Tocchet is probably gonna be better than Boudreau, but the main reasons anyone would project this team to improve significantly would have to do with having competent goaltending and a (hopefully) revamped defence.

As an aside I'm floored that a lot of people seem to think that the reason the Canucks have been awful over the past decade is "not drafting high enough".

It's kind of funny as we're talking about late season bumps being cause for next season optimism here based on what happened last year... but that wasn't what actually happened. Benning & crew was fired what, 20 games in? And after that terrible start the team finished 40-30-12, good for 92 points and just a few short of a wildcard slot.

At the moment we're just looking at a potential good final 20 games. That's not going to fool anyone, as we saw at the start of this season the pace was set when the team was terrible in preseason and carried that into a losing streak to start the regular season. Should make it pretty clear and not fool anyone that optimism can set in only with a good start to the season.

 

[RandV]

Since I mentioned this classic:

 

[Diogenes92]

It's kind of funny as we're talking about late season bumps being cause for next season optimism here based on what happened last year... but that wasn't what actually happened. Benning & crew was fired what, 20 games in? And after that terrible start the team finished 40-30-12, good for 92 points and just a few short of a wildcard slot.

At the moment we're just looking at a potential good final 20 games. That's not going to fool anyone, as we saw at the start of this season the pace was set when the team was terrible in preseason and carried that into a losing streak to start the regular season. Should make it pretty clear and not fool anyone that optimism can set in only with a good start to the season.

It's been fooling a certain group of fans for years now.

 

[Josepho]

It's been fooling a certain group of fans for years now.

I obviously don't know the specific people you've been talking to but I feel like this has only been true for last year? (and I don't think December through April counts as a "small hot streak")

2015-2016: Complete dogshit at the end of the season. Points of optimism for the next season were the Eriksson/Gudbranson acquisitions (lmfao).
2016-2017: Complete dogshit at the end of the season. Don't really recall people being optimistic about the team's chances next year and they clearly weren't going all in to make the playoffs with their moves.
2017-2018: Winning streak at the end of the season, but IIRC most people thought the team was gonna have a few down years after the Sedins left.
2018-2019: Small hot streak at the end of March and April, but any optimism for the next season was based on the Myers/Miller acquisitions. This is the only year where they actually ended up improving.
2019-2020: Bit of a weird one where they obviously had an encouraging end to the season but lost 3 key UFAs. Maybe on CDC or whatever the sentiment was different but I think 95% of this board expected a decline for the next season.
2020-2021: Were 4-7-1 in the final month, so they didn't really have a "pointless winning streak". The people optimistic about the next season thought Dickinson was Manny Malhotra and that OEL was still in prime form.

And like, speaking for myself, I didn't really think they were going to be good in any of the above years, but I can see a reasonable path to significant improvement in 2023-2024.

 

[RobertKron]

It's been fooling a certain group of fans for years now.

The people who have been "fooled" would be saying the same things regardless.

 

[racerjoe]

Cherrypicking a specific part of my argument without considering what I am actually arguing for is a pointless exercise in futility and is disingenuous.

I was "cherry" picking your main point...

@Josepho seems to have done a full break down.

If you are asking what my opinion of this team has been with the end of seasons... I have said pretty much since Benning was here we were not going to be good. Last year I didn't think we would be good this season. After the offseason I thought we would be 5th in the division... is that optimistic? I don't know I will let you judge.