Management Thread | Who needs draft picks Edition

[Bleach Clean]

No... you want the entire reason why a team can or can't be just trength of the relative core groups. The cap flexibility. You lump drafting in with having extra picks and don't look at the trades at all.

I don't say that those things aren't factors, but say management and luck has just as much to do with it.

I don't think the first paragraph accurately describes my position. It's the relative strength of the groups, core and surrounding, the assets on hand, cap flexibility, luck and a host of other factors.... Not just the presence of 2-3 core players.

Management and luck has a great deal to do with it too, no question. Basically, a host of factors that VAN is scraping by in having. Not good enough.

 

[andora]

This is your stumbling block... Sure don't disagree some are harder. I won't disagree that Benning sure put this team behind the 8 ball. I do disagree that starting from a point with Hughes and Petterson is harder than starting at a point without them, at least when they are this young.


Without looking I think it is probably mostly on poor management making bad decisions.

I didn't look either my guess will be not producing quality young Talent

 

[racerjoe]

I didn't look either my guess will be not producing quality young Talent

This comment fits both yourself and @Bleach Clean.

Not producing quality talent is a management job... it is their primary function and why having good management is the key.

I don't know if we have that yet, they have done it in the past, but I think this is the key offseason to see if they do or don't.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This is your stumbling block... Sure don't disagree some are harder. I won't disagree that Benning sure put this team behind the 8 ball. I do disagree that starting from a point with Hughes and Petterson is harder than starting at a point without them, at least when they are this young.


Without looking I think it is probably mostly on poor management making bad decisions.

Finally, some paths are harder. Ok.

I never argued whether starting with Petterson and Hughes is easier than starting without them. That is a strawman.

VAN is just caught in the middle. They have 2-3 pieces depending upon who re-signs, bad cap, no pipeline, and anchor contracts. Even the best managers couldn't do what needs to be done in 1-2 years. The impact of what they need to do is massive. If there was a longer timeline, then maybe, with excellent management, maybe.

 

[racerjoe]

Finally, some paths are harder. Ok.

I never argued whether starting with Petterson and Hughes is easier than starting without them. That is a strawman.

VAN is just caught in the middle. They have 2-3 pieces depending upon who re-signs, bad cap, no pipeline, and anchor contracts. Even the best managers couldn't do what needs to be done in 1-2 years. The impact of what they need to do is massive. If there was a longer timeline, then maybe, with excellent management, maybe.

???? That is exactly what you have been saying, and using that why we should rebuild.

 

[Bleach Clean]

???? That is exactly what you have been saying, and using that why we should rebuild.

No, I’m saying rebuild as a mode (focus on futures and liquidating players), and whether Pettersson and Hughes are around in 2+ years, that is secondary to the rebuild itself.

If they can get Pettersson to buy into the rebuild, all the better. But these players don’t decide the direction of the team, the greater needs of the franchise are paramount.

 

[4Twenty]

This place is insane

 

[racerjoe]

No, I’m saying rebuild as a mode (focus on futures and liquidating players), and whether Pettersson and Hughes are around in 2+ years, that is secondary to the rebuild itself.

If they can get Pettersson to buy into the rebuild, all the better. But these players don’t decide the direction of the team, the greater needs of the franchise are paramount.

You just described two different things as one... its delusional and not based in reality. What team has done what you have said successfully.

 

[andora]

This place is insane

Membrane

 

[Fatass]

I don't think the first paragraph accurately describes my position. It's the relative strength of the groups, core and surrounding, the assets on hand, cap flexibility, luck and a host of other factors.... Not just the presence of 2-3 core players.

Management and luck has a great deal to do with it too, no question. Basically, a host of factors that VAN is scraping by in having. Not good enough.

Of course we are in a position where rebuilding through the draft is the best option to come out with a team that can compete, over a long term, for the cup.
I don’t see this owner allowing that path though. So what is the best option for management considering the owner’s directions?
To me it’s what management is trying. They are reallocating cap to better balance the team. Bo for Hronek as an example.

 

[CherryToke]

This place is insane

Product of the environment

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

This place is insane

 

[Coffee]

I LOVE THESE GUYS

 

[Bleach Clean]

You just described two different things as one... its delusional and not based in reality. What team has done what you have said successfully.

There isn't an example either way, it's just the best of their remaining options.

Normally, teams don't try to re-tool a failed re-tool within 2 years (A 25th placed team at that). That's what this situation is now. No real precedent. Some would call that the height of delusion...

On the flipside, it's also difficult trying to rebuild while you have mid-aged core players. The Canucks are caught in the middle. And so, the question becomes: What best serves the ultimate health of the franchise despite what is already here? Well, focusing on futures does because it's not beholden to any of Pettersson, Hughes and/or Demko staying here. Do you understand?

 

[racerjoe]

There isn't an example either way, it's just the best of their remaining options.

Normally, teams don't try to re-tool a failed re-tool within 2 years (A 25th placed team at that). That's what this situation is now. No real precedent. Some would call that the height of delusion...

On the flipside, it's also difficult trying to rebuild while you have mid-aged core players. The Canucks are caught in the middle. And so, the question becomes: What best serves the ultimate health of the franchise despite what is already here? Well, focusing on futures does because it's not beholden to any of Pettersson, Hughes and/or Demko staying here. Do you understand?

I also think this is a main problem. I don't care where this team finishes this season, I don't think most people here would view them as a team that low. I think most would probably agree we are a bubble team. No I don't think that is good enough, but it is much better starting place.


Failed retool? When was the first?

 

[Bleach Clean]

I also think this is a main problem. I don't care where this team finishes this season, I don't think most people here would view them as a team that low. I think most would probably agree we are a bubble team. No I don't think that is good enough, but it is much better starting place.


Failed retool? When was the first?

Don't let a late run fool you. This team was 25th over a 5 year sample. A recent run in garbage time doesn't change that for me.

The initial justification for a re-tool was the Sedins, via Linden, and I don't believe they've stopped trying to re-tool since.

 

[4Twenty]

I also think this is a main problem. I don't care where this team finishes this season, I don't think most people here would view them as a team that low. I think most would probably agree we are a bubble team. No I don't think that is good enough, but it is much better starting place.


Failed retool? When was the first?

This is your red herring.


You want to call them a bubble team when they’ve not been close to the bubble in each of the last two seasons.

If you’re double digit points out of the final Playoff spot you’re not on the bubble.

The Canucks are 20th of 32 over large samples. You ignore this every time.

Even if we agreee the starting point is bubble team, all of the other issues Bleach Clean has laid out for you (no picks, no prospects, capped out) should be obvious that he bubble team isn’t launching from a great position to sustain.

 

[bossram]

I also think this is a main problem. I don't care where this team finishes this season, I don't think most people here would view them as a team that low. I think most would probably agree we are a bubble team. No I don't think that is good enough, but it is much better starting place.


Failed retool? When was the first?

I think yeah, most people would agree they are a bubble team, on true talent. Being a bubble team is literally the worst place to be in the NHL - you are not a contender, but you don't get to reap the rewards of the draft system.

Not only are the Canucks a bubble-ish team, they are one bereft of draft capital, legit prospects, or even cap flexibilty to improve. Truly a terrible organizational position.

The question is what path should the organization chart to become a long-term contender at some point. Which is more likely? Retool or rebuild?

 

[racerjoe]

Don't let a late run fool you. This team was 25th over a 5 year sample. A recent run in garbage time doesn't change that for me.

The initial justification for a re-tool was the Sedins, a la Linden, and I don't believe they've stopped trying to re-tool since.

Last year they were 18th and 5 points out of a playoff spot. But ok.

What is your fascination with a 5 year sample? Does this team look anything like they did 5 years ago? Hank was the teams leading scorer 5 years ago. Its just weird.

Again they may have tried to retool with the twins... but they failed and tanked. They didn't just retool... like I don't think their is a piece that has been on that team the entire time. That isn't a retool... retool hinges on keeping part of the team.

I think yeah, most people would agree they are a bubble team, on true talent. Being a bubble team is literally the worst place to be in the NHL - you are not a contender, but you don't get to reap the rewards of the draft system.

Not only are the Canucks a bubble-ish team, they are one bereft of draft capital, legit prospects, or even cap flexibilty to improve. Truly a terrible organizational position.

The question is what path should the organization chart to become a long-term contender at some point. Which is more likely? Retool or rebuild?

I don't completely disagree with anything here, and will say it is the best argument from anyone here trying to say otherwise. Easily.

My general counter is simply some teams have to hit the bubble before they can move to the next stage. I don't think there is anything wrong with trying when you have the talent this team does have.

Having said that, if you fail, you have to pull the chute quick. I really do believe this is a huge offseason. You don't have to have the team completed, but there has to be some avenues to try and explore.

 

[4Twenty]

Bubble team is jargon that has no real meaning. If the Canucks are a bubble team so is Detroit, Buffalo, Ottawa, Nashville, St Louis….

Who actually cares about the label. It’s about quantifying what they’re starting with.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Last year they were 18th and 5 points out of a playoff spot. But ok.

What is your fascination with a 5 year sample? Does this team look anything like they did 5 years ago? Hank was the teams leading scorer 5 years ago. Its just weird.

Again they may have tried to retool with the twins... but they failed and tanked. They didn't just retool... like I don't think their is a piece that has been on that team the entire time. That isn't a retool... retool hinges on keeping part of the team.

Now you're redefining re-tool and shortening the sample to fit?

I think we're at the point where you have understood my clarification: Rebuild around the core. That was my goal, and it has been achieved. We also achieved an agreement on one path being harder than the other (the lower probability of a short re-tool). And so, rather than re-hash the definition of re-tool and go into larger sample sizes reducing noise, I'll exit here. Good chat. See you out there.

 

[racerjoe]

Now you're redefining re-tool and shortening the sample to fit?

You tried to re-difine retool. Yes I shortened the sample size, as again its not relevant when the twins were here is it. I mean lets say f*** it and include 2011. Then how do we look?

Rebuild around the core.

This is impossible... both Hughes and Petterson have said this as much as they can without saying it. Hell Hughes did pretty much say it. You want to rebuild... you can't do it with them here.

We also achieved an agreement on one path being harder than the other (the lower probability of a short re-tool).

No we haven't, and you haven't shown this to be true... at all. or even a little bit.

See you out there.

Have a good one.

 

[bossram]

I don't completely disagree with anything here, and will say it is the best argument from anyone here trying to say otherwise. Easily.

My general counter is simply some teams have to hit the bubble before they can move to the next stage. I don't think there is anything wrong with trying when you have the talent this team does have.

Having said that, if you fail, you have to pull the chute quick. I really do believe this is a huge offseason. You don't have to have the team completed, but there has to be some avenues to try and explore.

I agree some teams need to go through the “bubble” phase before becoming a contender. Colorado was in that spot several years ago. I think Buffalo is in that spot now. But those are teams where you can see the upside and room to improve: Young core not at their peak, an asset base that can be leveraged into NHLers, and cap space to fit them in. I don’t think the Canucks have that upside, because the other attributes (assets and cap flexibility) are simply not there.

If the Canucks manage to run a top-four of Hughes/Bear/Gavrikov/Hronek, I actually think it’s more likely than not they’ll make the playoffs. But where does 7th or 8th really get you? That’s like the max upside they have for the next few seasons.

 

[racerjoe]

I agree some teams need to go through the “bubble” phase before becoming a contender. Colorado was in that spot several years ago. I think Buffalo is in that spot now. But those are teams where you can see the upside and room to improve: Young core not at their peak, an asset base that can be leveraged into NHLers, and cap space to fit them in. I don’t think the Canucks have that upside, because the other attributes (assets and cap flexibility) are simply not there.

If the Canucks manage to run a top-four of Hughes/Bear/Gavrikov/Hronek, I actually think it’s more likely than not they’ll make the playoffs. But where does 7th or 8th really get you? That’s like the max upside they have for the next few seasons.

Again totally fair opinion. I just think there is more growth for this team... or more room to grow that is. The absolutely need to lose some of these inefficient contracts, and even if they get some back, but some that are fitting what this team needs more.

Its a huge offseason. If its not done right, I think its start over time.

 

[Cancuks]

I agree some teams need to go through the “bubble” phase before becoming a contender. Colorado was in that spot several years ago. I think Buffalo is in that spot now. But those are teams where you can see the upside and room to improve: Young core not at their peak, an asset base that can be leveraged into NHLers, and cap space to fit them in. I don’t think the Canucks have that upside, because the other attributes (assets and cap flexibility) are simply not there.

If the Canucks manage to run a top-four of Hughes/Bear/Gavrikov/Hronek, I actually think it’s more likely than not they’ll make the playoffs. But where does 7th or 8th really get you? That’s like the max upside they have for the next few seasons.

Bear is not a top 4 on a contender. They need to add a shutdown physical dman like Cernak or Carlo to play with Hughes IMO.