Management Thread | Who needs draft picks Edition

[andora]

Not saying having capspace and a couple of later round picks can turn this ship made of dried up dung around in a hurry but it surely would benefit the team.
Its a way less costly gamle than signing/trading for the likes of Hronek or other UFAs.
If we were legit contending for the cup Im all for it but as of right now I'd rather they do the "weaponize cap space" thingy instead of this quick retool arc 9.

No i didnt think you were.. all good

I dont see the appeal right now to take on some bums for mid picks or a costly bum for a 2nd

If they do what i am hoping they do.. at minimum myers and one of pearson and poolman that in itself is huge and allows us to function with smart signings that fit the new system.what i am really looking forward to is johansson.. he is exactly who can benefit and develop when forwards support.

Hell add boeser retained a bit for something decent and we become even more flexible

They gotta do what i said was the minimum though.. but i dont think we are or were or will be in the mode of that dump for picks stuff. These guys seem adament at finding their own mid roundees

 

[racerjoe]

Cant blame them though.
They knew the player is Dunn.

No you mean you can't blame them, because 5 years before that when Benning scouted him, he only looked like a second rounder...

 

[DonnyNucker]

How many Canadian teams would you trade rosters with?

Toronto
Ottawa
Montreal
Winnipeg
Calgary
Edmonton

Only Ottawa and Edmonton

 

[LordBacon]

No you mean you can't blame them, because 5 years before that when Benning scouted him, he only looked like a second rounder...

Woosh

 

[racerjoe]

Woosh

No, I got your Dunn done... I just chose a different joke.

 

[VanJack]

Jake Livingstone looks to be the prize of college d-men, looking to sign an NHL contract.

Competition for spots on the Canucks blueline is 'wide-open' and he's a B,.C, kid. Does he land in Vancouver?

Vancouver needs to be looking at all options to improve its' blueline.

 

[Fren]

Jake Livingstone looks to be the prize of college d-men, looking to sign an NHL contract.

Competition for spots on the Canucks blueline is 'wide-open' and he's a B,.C, kid. Does he land in Vancouver?

Vancouver needs to be looking at all options to improve its' blueline.

This has been said before, but he's from a part of BC where most of the people there are Lames or Coilers fans. I don't think he'd be a Canucks fan, but I may be wrong.

 

[Icebreakers]

This has been said before, but he's from a part of BC where most of the people there are Lames or Coilers fans. I don't think he'd be a Canucks fan, but I may be wrong.

Yup. He said in an interview himself that he was a flames fan growing up. Besides, Creston is closer geographically to Calgary than it is to Vancouver.

That being said, hes going to go to the team that gives him the best chance of playing. Hes not going to be touching the flames roster this year given that they are battling for a playoff spot.

 

[timw33]

Yup. He said in an interview himself that he was a flames fan growing up. Besides, Creston is closer geographically to Calgary than it is to Vancouver.

That being said, hes going to go to the team that gives him the best chance of playing. Hes not going to be touching the flames roster this year given that they are battling for a playoff spot.

Flames have Tanev, Anderson, Weegar all signed on the RS next year and 8D on NHL contracts.

The opportunity here is so much more clear.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

seattle is the most facile "example" of a retool/turnaround

it was goaltending all along! please ignore the 19 year old center picked #2 overall and the 15m in free agent depth additions that give them four scoring lines and three strong defensive pairings

Wait, you mean hitting on draft picks and having cap space can put teams in a position to make the right moves?

Golly, what was everyone on here advocating for nearly a f***ing decade? Pricey free agent signings and trading futures off en masse?

 

[andora]

Flames have Tanev, Anderson, Weegar all signed on the RS next year and 8D on NHL contracts.

The opportunity here is so much more clear.

Wdegar plays left

I think seattle gets corked in a playoff series

They have been a mess for awhile

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

Disingenuous quote of the year, "We can’t afford to wait until next year, these are important games for us. We’re trying to build stuff around here.”

tik talkit

 

[Bleach Clean]

This here is the problem... you want everything to be exactly the same or it doesn't count. You will never have two things exactly the same.

Your rebuild has to be X... but why?

This doesn't count because... reasons... but why?

The fact is teams have been in a similar position as us, how they got there... who cares. then retooled and succeeded. Yes won cups.

When saying a re-tool is just as viable as a rebuild, and that the Canucks can mimic a 2 year re-tool from a prior example, the burden of proof is on you to provide that example. I saw none, asked for it, and now I'm trying to understand how it compares. Simple really.

No one is looking for exact replicas, that's a strawman. I knew before asking you that it would be very challenging for you to find. A successful 2 year re-tool after a failed re-tool is seldom seen. We do see and recognize teams that rebuilt properly and go on to win cups though...

I'll grant that WCE era VAN was similar, but it took them 5 years to get out of it, and they didn't win a cup. Is that an example you think permeates the NHL? IMO, no, it does not. This is why I was looking forward to your evidence initially.

Anyway, the base argument is that re-tooling is a low probability strategy. Rebuilds are also hard to do too, but we see more examples of them working. A 2 year re-tool off a failed re-tool with anchor contracts, no cap flexibility, a small core etc... Yeah, not likely, but you're free to hope.

 

[racerjoe]

When saying a re-tool is just as viable as a rebuild, and that the Canucks can mimic a 2 year re-tool from a prior example, the burden of proof is on you to provide that example. I saw none, asked for it, and now I'm trying to understand how it compares. Simple really.

No one is looking for exact replicas, that's a strawman. I knew before asking you that it would be very challenging for you to find. A successful 2 year re-tool after a failed re-tool is seldom seen. We do see and recognize teams that rebuilt properly and go on to win cups though...

I'll grant that WCE era VAN was similar, but it took them 5 years to get out of it, and they didn't win a cup. Is that an example you think permeates the NHL? IMO, no, it does not. This is why I was looking forward to your evidence initially.

Anyway, the base argument is that re-tooling is a low probability strategy. Rebuilds are also hard to do too, but we see more examples of them working. A 2 year re-tool off a failed re-tool with anchor contracts, no cap flexibility, a small core etc... Yeah, not likely, but you're free to hope.

I have given you multiple examples so don't give me the burden of proof crap. Its just you moving goal posts. You keep saying this doesn't count because of X... that isn't my problem you don't want to count valid examples. Don't try and say its a strawman when I keep giving you examples.

Five years to get out of the WCE? Sorry, no again that is you moving goal posts. Gillis took two years to turn that team around. You can't move the goal posts to a different point, three years earlier because it fits your argument.

All you have done this entire time is move goal posts. Like if I use the 2023 Blues as a future example and say do you think they will be good in two years. You would move the goal posts to well they won the cup in 2019 so that is when the rebuild started... when that just isn't true.

Stop moving the goal posts or this debate is going nowhere.

Yes I put no time into this as your responses so far don't deserve time and effort.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I have given you multiple examples so don't give me the burden of proof crap. Its just you moving goal posts. You keep saying this doesn't count because of X... that isn't my problem you don't want to count valid examples. Don't try and say its a strawman when I keep giving you examples.

Five years to get out of the WCE? Sorry, no again that is you moving goal posts. Gillis took two years to turn that team around. You can't move the goal posts to a different point, three years earlier because it fits your argument.

All you have done this entire time is move goal posts. Like if I use the 2023 Blues as a future example and say do you think they will be good in two years. You would move the goal posts to well they won the cup in 2019 so that is when the rebuild started... when that just isn't true.

Stop moving the goal posts or this debate is going nowhere.

Yes I put no time into this as your responses so far don't deserve time and effort.

This is akin to you wildly thrashing about for an answer. You're better than this racer.



Let's re-iterate the positions here (and correct me if I'm wrong):

You define team success by winning a cup. That the decision to re-tool is based upon the presence of Pettersson-Hughes-Demko, and management's decision to do so (because re-tools and rebuilds have an equal probability of success). Last, that re-tools have worked in the past and so should work the same for _THIS_ team.

My position:

I too define team success by winning a cup. The decision to re-tool is based primarily on the probability of its success. Not the presence of Pettersson-Hughes-Demko alone, and certainly not management's decision to do so. Why? Because I don't treat re-tools and rebuilds as equal propositions. Re-tools require a good base. And yes, while other NHL teams have re-tooled properly, THIS is a 25th place team and those other teams were much stronger at the beginning of their re-tools.

Is that a fair assessment of our two positions?

If it is, then by the parameters of winning the cup, the good teams re-tooled well enough to win. PIT, TBay and CHI... ok, But this is not a good team so how does it compare to PIT, TBay, CHI? It's like the only connection is the act of re-tooling itself, without any regard for the relative position of the two teams. And if that's all you wanted to list for the example, ok. I'll accept that both teams tried to/are trying to re-tool...

 

[racerjoe]

This is akin to you wildly thrashing about for an answer. You're better than this racer.



Let's re-iterate the positions here (and correct me if I'm wrong):

You define team success by winning a cup. That the decision to re-tool is based upon the presence of Pettersson-Hughes-Demko, and management's decision to do so (because re-tools and rebuilds have an equal probability of success). Last, that re-tools have worked in the past and so should work the same for _THIS_ team.

My position:

I too define team success by winning a cup. The decision to re-tool is based primarily on the probability of its success. Not the presence of Pettersson-Hughes-Demko alone, and certainly not management's decision to do so. Why? Because I don't treat re-tools and rebuilds as equal propositions. Re-tools require a good base. And yes, while other NHL teams have re-tooled properly, THIS is a 25th place team and those other teams were much stronger at the beginning of their re-tools.

Is that a fair assessment of our two positions?

If it is, then by the parameters of winning the cup, the good teams re-tooled well enough to win. PIT, TBay and CHI... ok, But this is not a good team so how does it compare to PIT, TBay, CHI? It's like the only connection is the act of re-tooling itself, without any regard for the relative position of the two teams. And if that's all you wanted to list for the example, ok. I'll accept that both teams tried to/are trying to re-tool...

In a very general way it is fair... then it becomes not fair if you then take out teams because they had succeeded in the past like a Hawks team, or a or take out a team because they finish a few points ahead of the Canucks currently like a pens team (who I only primarily used as that is where our President and GM came from), and so on.

This also doesn't take into account your harsh strict definition of a rebuild.

This doesn't take into account it doesn't matter how a team got to a point either.

You like to strip out variables that don't suit your narrative for no reason. I mean you will give one, but it isn't really valid to the point we are discussing.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

Yikes, in the pre-game interview with Tocchet, Ben Kuzma is sincerely saying the Canucks have something important to play for down the stretch and basically parroted back Tocchet's quote, "We can’t afford to wait until next year, these are important games for us. We’re trying to build stuff around here.”

People say that the media definitely isn't part of the problem here. I mean, it's not as if they are carrying the owner's luggage through the airport...

 

[VanJack]

This has been said before, but he's from a part of BC where most of the people there are Lames or Coilers fans. I don't think he'd be a Canucks fan, but I may be wrong.

Livingstone may have grown up in Creston, but he played four years in the BCJHL with the Langley Rivermen on the Lower Mainland. Seems to me if was Alberta-centric' he'd have gone and played for a team in the AJHL.

 

[4Twenty]

Which year did the Penguins start to retool? It looks to me like after their 4th straight season of picking 1st or 2nd they’ve been trying to win the cup every year.

From 2007 to today they’ve been going all in. They tried to swap out spending on their 3C from Staal to Sutter to Bonino but they didn’t really retool. They were pot invested from 2007.

They haven’t finished in the bottom 10 since 2006. The Canucks have been bottom 10 for 80% of the last decade.

 

[andora]

Which year did the Penguins start to retool? It looks to me like after their 4th straight season of picking 1st or 2nd they’ve been trying to win the cup every year.

From 2007 to today they’ve been going all in. They tried to swap out spending on their 3C from Staal to Sutter to Bonino but they didn’t really retool. They were pot invested from 2007.

They haven’t finished in the bottom 10 since 2006. The Canucks have been bottom 10 for 80% of the last decade.

i think they were an example of 'retooling' without bottoming out - they revamped their entire defence outside letang and changed up a big chunk of their forwards around their studs

 

[MS]

i think they were an example of 'retooling' without bottoming out - they revamped their entire defence outside letang and changed up a big chunk of their forwards around their studs

It was actually even crazier than that.

There were 5 guys on their 2016 Cup winning team who had finished the 12-13 season for them - Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Fleury, and Kunitz. They basically turned over their entire roster in 3 years, save for their 4 foundational stars.

 

[andora]

It was actually even crazier than that.

There were 5 guys on their 2016 Cup winning team who had finished the 12-13 season for them - Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Fleury, and Kunitz. They basically turned over their entire roster in 3 years, save for their 4 foundational stars.

Lol... i would have guess maybe 8 to 10 same players .. memory slippin

 

[4Twenty]

i think they were an example of 'retooling' without bottoming out - they revamped their entire defence outside letang and changed up a big chunk of their forwards around their studs

it’s just a really weird comparable. A cup winning team that made the conference finals and had the two best centres in the league being the support for the Canucks retooling when they wete essentially all in to win cups is nowhere close to what the Canucks are.

No comparison is perfect. I get that but Pettersson is not Crosby. Not Malkin either.

The Canucks have a middle of the road maybe top 10 core of 3 players and they’ve got not a lot coming.

If I’m fair though I guess the opposite end is pointing out Colorado. So fair is fair.

I just don’t see how pointing out a generational team isn’t basically picking an outlier.

 

[andora]

it’s just a really weird comparable. A cup winning team that made the conference finals and had the two best centres in the league being the support for the Canucks retooling when they wete essentially all in to win cups is nowhere close to what the Canucks are.

No comparison is perfect. I get that but Pettersson is not Crosby. Not Malkin either.

The Canucks have a middle of the road maybe top 10 core of 3 players and they’ve got not a lot coming.

If I’m fair though I guess the opposite end is pointing out Colorado. So fair is fair.

I just don’t see how pointing out a generational team isn’t basically picking an outlier.

I guess but in terms of the process of it changing everything on your team except for five players I think kind of qualifies as retooling the roster.

Overall though I think we're way too hung up on these terms and sometimes trying to fit Square pegs into round holes or even more accurate different oval shapes into different oval holes. I don't really see the point taking the Canucks in 2023 and trying to find all these comparable comparables instead of just pragmatically looking at what's right in front of us and discussing what needs to be done large and small major and minor.

 

[4Twenty]

I guess but in terms of the process of it changing everything on your team except for five players I think kind of qualifies as retooling the roster.

Overall though I think we're way too hung up on these terms and sometimes trying to fit Square pegs into round holes or even more accurate different oval shapes into different oval holes. I don't really see the point taking the Canucks in 2023 and trying to find all these comparable comparables instead of just pragmatically looking at what's right in front of us and discussing what needs to be done large and small major and minor.

Fair enough.

I don’t like the comparable thing either. Bleach clean is just trying to create a starting point with commonly agreed upon basics. And why he disagrees with the direction.

Dumbed down its retool vs rebuild and while I disagree with the Canucks choice and direction, I don’t disagree there are certain circumstances that lend better to the retool on the fly approach. I just don’t think it’s worth it given the totality of the Canucks situation.

But then the excuse becomes “but Pettersson and Hughes don’t wanna rebuild” and it all gets repeated.