Management Threads | Structure. Standards. Habits.

[arttk]

Can you think of any reason your self?

There is 2.5 weeks left before UFA and teams aren’t even allow to talk to UFA la yet. So no I can’t think of any reason why the team need to notify him.
oh no, the team didn’t give him a heads up that he will be getting a one time 20M dollar check. Can you imagine the horror of waking up and finding out you have 20,000,000 in the bank?

 

[me2]

nobody spends 20 million like that in an instant. this was always an option they were considering.

They would have had a list of plan with contingency ending with OEL.

Plan A: trade Boeser
Plan B: trade Garland
Plan C: trade Beauvillier/other
Plan D: trade Miller for cheap young centre
Plan E: pay someone to take Myers

If unable to achieve A-E before buyouts start

Plan F: buyout OEL

 

[tradervik]

Most of those decisions were made on a pretty short notice.

Or do you think the Hronek trade and the Miller contracts were planned months ahead?

OEL buyout seems like another one that was made on a short notice.

Alternatively, the decisions appeared to happen on short notice because there were no leaks that such actions were being considered.

 

[sting101]

I take it that you're not a fan of the buyout..?

I'm not a fan of the "I'm excited to see what he can bring" and " top4 defenseman" to close out the season and then after failing to move salary after they backed themselves into a corner they do this. Bear out for 6months, top4 RD hole, top4 LD hole and further in a position of weakness with the worst free agent class in a long time.

I guess we'll see what they do with it but if this is the trend of paying to off load .....a 2nd and now 19million over 8yrs and then just keep adding negative or neutral value players to contracts were just falling into a deeper hole and going nowhere

 

[God]

What is the narrative you think I'm going for here?

All I am saying is that the story people are now repeating how nothing leaks from this management is bullshit.

I think the decision was made very quick.

If they had time they would have given OEL a heads up.

once again, the owner spending 20M to buyout OEL doesn't happen as a "quick decision". you are trying to portray this management as reactive. there may be other cases of that, but this is not one of them. aquilini won't just commit 20M to this move without a heads up.

i'm not sure why you think OEL is supposedly owed advance notice either, given that players are constantly traded without prior notice for a good reason: employers often won't tell employees what their plans are because if the plan falls through, you're left with an unhappy employee.

They would have had a list of plan with contingency ending with OEL.

Plan A: trade Boeser
Plan B: trade Garland
Plan C: trade Beauvillier/other
Plan D: trade Miller for cheap young centre
Plan E: pay someone to take Myers

If unable to achieve A-E before buyouts start

Plan F: buyout OEL

yeah but technically if plan E fails, pivoting to plan F quickly is considered a snap judgment. quod erat demonstrandum, noob

 

[me2]

once again, the owner spending 20M to buyout OEL doesn't happen as a "quick decision". you are trying to portray this management as reactive. there may be other cases of that, but this is not one of them. aquilini won't just commit 20M to this move without a heads up.

i'm not sure why you think OEL is supposedly owed advance notice either, given that players are constantly traded without prior notice for a good reason: employers often won't tell employees what their plans are because if the plan falls through, you're left with an unhappy employee.

He's not owed anything but it is always good courtesy to look after players, especially well regarded vets. If they knew they were going to buy him out a heads up should have been done. If they were trying to keep him but ran out of time, needs must.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

" I don't want to use buyouts if we don't have to,” Allvin said after the Canucks missed the Stanley Cup Playoffs for the seventh time in eight seasons. “I don't want to use buyouts that (are) going to affect us in a couple of years when this group is actually, hopefully, taking off. The intention is not using buyouts at this point.”

His comment seemed to contradict what Canucks president Jim Rutherford said in January. Rutherford told reporters that the organization must use all means available to shed contracts and create salary-cap space because “until we move those out, or until they expire, it’s going to be hard to make changes.”

The apparent reversal by Canucks management on Friday, the opening day of the league’s buyout window, may be due to Allvin’s inability so far to trade for cap flexibility by interesting other teams in players like Conor Garland and Brock Boeser without having to retain salary in transactions.

Allvin may not have “intended” to buy out Ekman-Larsson, but he understood the harsh and inescapable reality that there was no other way.

But with Bear injured and veteran Tyler Myers, another player whose contract the Canucks are trying to shed, there is no apparent second pairing in Vancouver.

The cap space created by the Ekman-Larsson buyout should pay for two or three players, including a third-line centre that Allvin and Tocchet have identified as the team’s biggest need.

On Friday, Allvin found the only exit ramp he could on that debilitating contract" Sportsnet.

Oh my God man, what the actual Hell???!!! It's like since the buyout you've been a broken record capable of nothing else but repeating the fact that they claimed they weren't planning to buy anybody out. Move the heck on. Why is this ruining your life?

 

[God]

He's not owed anything but it is always good courtesy to look after players, especially well regarded vets. If they knew they were going to buy him out a heads up should have been done. If they were trying to keep him but ran out of time, needs must.

they did not know they were going to buy him out until they exhausted all of the avenues. we also don't know what was discussed at the end of season meeting. his agent said OEL did not think this would happen... which fits in with the "we will try to move salary through trades and as a last resort we may have to do buyouts" story that management has talked about.

i generally agree that teams should treat players better, and probably the best example is how poorly stecher and tanev were treated (i.e. no phone call) prior to them becoming free agents. but like... how long does the team need to give advance notice to OEL that they're gonna buy him out, and what purpose would it serve to give him 2 days advance notice?

 

[sting101]

Why would they give him notice? "Ahh hey OEL just so you know in a few months we're going to fire you if we can't free up cap space."

Nah

 

[PuckMunchkin]

There is 2.5 weeks left before UFA and teams aren’t even allow to talk to UFA la yet. So no I can’t think of any reason why the team need to notify him.
oh no, the team didn’t give him a heads up that he will be getting a one time 20M dollar check. Can you imagine the horror of waking up and finding out you have 20,000,000 in the bank?

That is a rough look. (edit on you that is)

 

[PuckMunchkin]

once again, the owner spending 20M to buyout OEL doesn't happen as a "quick decision". you are trying to portray this management as reactive. there may be other cases of that, but this is not one of them. aquilini won't just commit 20M to this move without a heads up.

I've heard that the owner was against buyouts until VERY recently.

We know Yzerman called the Canucks on the Hronek trade.

i'm not sure why you think OEL is supposedly owed advance notice either, given that players are constantly traded without prior notice for a good reason: employers often won't tell employees what their plans are because if the plan falls through, you're left with an unhappy employee.

Because that is how quality organizations operate.

To manage relations with players and agents.

To treat people with respect.


With your trade analog, can you explain to me how the buyout might have fallen through?

yeah but technically if plan E fails, pivoting to plan F quickly is considered a snap judgment. quod erat demonstrandum, noob

This season has been an unmitigated disaster on the management level.

I really dont give two shits if they are being reactive or not. That is not a big deal to me. In the Hronek case we know they were. The rest will be just speculation.

 

[arttk]

That is a rough look. (edit on you that is)

Not really. It’s more like you trying to find fault out of nothing.

If the Canucks bought him out after FA opened and all the teams has spent their money and didn’t give him a heads up, sure. But that is not the case, OEL has as much time as any other UFA to look for a team. He also has 20M paid out to him right away.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Not really. It’s more like you trying to find fault out of nothing.

If the Canucks bought him out after FA opened and all the teams has spent their money and didn’t give him a heads up, sure. But that is not the case, OEL has as much time as any other UFA to look for a team. He also has 20M paid out to him right away.

But if you actually wanted to you could have come up with reasons.

But you cant bring your self to do that because of the way you operate.

 

[MS]

Why on earth would they have given OEL advance notice about this? What in the actual f***?

 

[arttk]

But if you actually wanted to you could have come up with reasons.

But you cant bring your self to do that because of the way you operate.

Seems like you are just ignoring what I said. The Canucks didn’t do anything that would disadvantaged OEL in any way at all. Even if they gave him a heads up, he and his agent would not be allowed to talk to teams until the period opens for UFAs to talk to teams.

So you are essentially arguing that is is bad because you want to say it is bad. Hell you can’t even come up with a reason why it’s bad.

 

[God]

I've heard that the owner was against buyouts until VERY recently.

We know Yzerman called the Canucks on the Hronek trade.

He called the Canucks because they had called him about Hronek months ago. What's your point? GMs call each other all the time to gauge interest. He knew they were interested and they sprung to acquire a top 4 defenseman. Is that reactive? Lol.

Because that is how quality organizations operate.

To manage relations with players and agents.

To treat people with respect.

ok. "Hey OEL we're buying you out. we couldn't clear cap without destroying our assets and this was the only option"

Elliotte Friedman: "Word is the Canucks are going to buy OEL out"

is there any difference if it happens on June 16th or June 18th? no.

With your trade analog, can you explain to me how the buyout might have fallen through?

I don't know if this is a language barrier thing but I've clearly outlined the most likely scenario which is in line with what they've said this entire time: buyouts are a last resort and they will try to clear space through trades. When that could not be achieved in a reasonable fashion, they went the buyout route. If they were able to make a trade by giving up a 2nd round pick to trade Garland, for example, then they wouldn't have had to do the buyout.

This season has been an unmitigated disaster on the management level.

I really dont give two shits if they are being reactive or not. That is not a big deal to me. In the Hronek case we know they were. The rest will be just speculation.

The Hronek case is not being reactive. Yzerman knew they were interested in Hronek because they called them before on it. Also here are a bunch of your posts that clearly show you care about them being reactive (and I only know this because after reading these boards regularly since Benning got fired, this has been a constant theme of your posts - there are more that cannot be quoted):

It looks rough.

We got the management change we waited for years... and so far this group has show to be dysfunctional and reactive and short term planning and rather embarassing...

It will be ~15 years ( counting from 2012) before we are relevant again.

The only true dark days I experienced (been a remote fan since the 94 cup run) has been the Messier years.

That lasted for 3 years. This is going to be 5x longer once all is said and done.

Its more of the reactive management.

They had a plan. It didnt last contact with 1/4 of a season.

I for one want an actual long term plan where the goal is to open a significant cup contention window.

I don't understand how our situation could be worse.

The rebuild will only take 6-8 years if you run this bus to the wall it is obviously headed. Proactive management instead of reactive management.

But I get where you are at. Like I said. I do respect you a ton.

 

[Vector]

Rathbone tops out as an AHLer. Shouldve been moved when he had his good year, or maybe they decide to keep him as a vet in the A

I think Rathbone gets traded this offseason. Won't command much of a return but I could see him getting flipped for a late round pick or a low-level prospect.

 

[arttk]

He called the Canucks because they had called him about Hronek months ago. What's your point? GMs call each other all the time to gauge interest. He knew they were interested and they sprung to acquire a top 4 defenseman. Is that reactive? Lol.



ok. "Hey OEL we're buying you out. we couldn't clear cap without destroying our assets and this was the only option"

Elliotte Friedman: "Word is the Canucks are going to buy OEL out"

is there any difference if it happens on June 16th or June 18th? no.



I don't know if this is a language barrier thing but I've clearly outlined the most likely scenario which is in line with what they've said this entire time: buyouts are a last resort and they will try to clear space through trades. When that could not be achieved in a reasonable fashion, they went the buyout route. If they were able to make a trade by giving up a 2nd round pick to trade Garland, for example, then they wouldn't have had to do the buyout.



The Hronek case is not being reactive. Yzerman knew they were interested in Hronek because they called them before on it. Also here are a bunch of your posts that clearly show you care about them being reactive (and I only know this because after reading these boards regularly since Benning got fired, this has been a constant theme of your posts - there are more that cannot be quoted):

It’s like somebody never got fired before. I was in a situation recently where the company told everyone people were going to be laid off like 2 months in advance. Nobody appreciated getting the heads up. Everyone wanted it to be announced and executed right away.

Giving heads-up on stuff like that makes no f***ing sense.

 

[racerjoe]

Its funny to talk about how good teams treat their players when the team that has been the most ruthless, over the last 6 years just won the cup...

 

[PuckMunchkin]

He called the Canucks because they had called him about Hronek months ago. What's your point? GMs call each other all the time to gauge interest. He knew they were interested and they sprung to acquire a top 4 defenseman. Is that reactive? Lol.



ok. "Hey OEL we're buying you out. we couldn't clear cap without destroying our assets and this was the only option"

Elliotte Friedman: "Word is the Canucks are going to buy OEL out"

is there any difference if it happens on June 16th or June 18th? no.



I don't know if this is a language barrier thing but I've clearly outlined the most likely scenario which is in line with what they've said this entire time: buyouts are a last resort and they will try to clear space through trades. When that could not be achieved in a reasonable fashion, they went the buyout route. If they were able to make a trade by giving up a 2nd round pick to trade Garland, for example, then they wouldn't have had to do the buyout.

Oh.. I did not think of that.

I guess they could have just traded Garland or some other player and kept OEL.

I never considered that as an option with the plan they have to compete right now.

Nothing forced them to make the buyout on day one of the buyout window. They could, if they wanted to, give him a call and then put the buyout in.

Maybe this is a culture difference between how north America treats employees vs Scandinavia?

The Hronek case is not being reactive. Yzerman knew they were interested in Hronek because they called them before on it. Also here are a bunch of your posts that clearly show you care about them being reactive (and I only know this because after reading these boards regularly since Benning got fired, this has been a constant theme of your posts - there are more that cannot be quoted):

Yes I was genuinely horrified when it first became apparent that they don't have a long term plan.

I've accepted it as just how they operate. I will gladly concede to you that they are not being reactive if that helps move this conversation forward or even end it.

The overall direction is the problem.

It’s like somebody never got fired before. I was in a situation recently where the company told everyone people were going to be laid off like 2 months in advance. Nobody appreciated getting the heads up. Everyone wanted it to be announced and executed right away.

Giving heads-up on stuff like that makes no f***ing sense.

These posts make zero sense at this point.

 

[arttk]

Oh.. I did not think of that.

I guess they could have just traded Garland or some other player and kept OEL.

I never considered that as an option with the plan they have to compete right now.

Nothing forced them to make the buyout on day one of the buyout window. They could, if they wanted to, give him a call and then put the buyout in.

Maybe this is a culture difference between how north America treats employees vs Scandinavia?


Yes I was genuinely horrified when it first became apparent that they don't have a long term plan.

I've accepted it as just how they operate. I will gladly concede to you that they are not being reactive if that helps move this conversation forward or even end it.

The overall direction is the problem.


These posts make zero sense at this point.

I mean you are making zero sense at this point.
It’s obviously you have no idea that there is no good reason to give OEL a heads up. It doesn’t do anything at all.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I mean you are making zero sense at this point.

I mean you are choosing to lie in these conversations...

So I'm sure its confusing when someone tries to be honest.

 

[God]

Oh.. I did not think of that.

I guess they could have just traded Garland or some other player and kept OEL.

I never considered that as an option with the plan they have to compete right now.

Nothing forced them to make the buyout on day one of the buyout window. They could, if they wanted to, give him a call and then put the buyout in.

Maybe this is a culture difference between how north America treats employees vs Scandinavia?


Yes I was genuinely horrified when it first became apparent that they don't have a long term plan.

I've accepted it as just how they operate. I will gladly concede to you that they are not being reactive if that helps move this conversation forward or even end it.

The overall direction is the problem.


These posts make zero sense at this point.

One thing I will say is that I think one of my biggest pet peeves with the local media right now is that I think a lot of them (mostly one person who you can probably guess) are spouting opinions based on what they think the team should be doing instead of talking about what the team is doing within the context of their plan.

And there is a plan. They have outlined a plan in numerous press conferences. I've posted about it yesterday or the day before: they're building around Petey/Hughes/Demko in the context of salary cap problems, so they have to get creative in acquiring middle 6 forwards/top 4 defensemen.

Their biggest mistake so far has been re-signing Boeser. It would've been fine if Boeser was producing like Miller. He's not, and he hasn't been for years. But they've also acquired a fantastic winger in Kuzmenko, turned losing Horvat into a top 4 defenseman, and they've improved pro scouting to be probably above average versus downright awful from the previous regime. Hopefully they can continue to find more European free agents like Aman.

I'm not envious of the position they're in, but I've watched hockey long enough to know that there are multiple paths to the cup and pretending like one way is the only way is foolish.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

One thing I will say is that I think one of my biggest pet peeves with the local media right now is that I think a lot of them (mostly one person who you can probably guess) are spouting opinions based on what they think the team should be doing instead of talking about what the team is doing within the context of their plan.

And there is a plan. They have outlined a plan in numerous press conferences. I've posted about it yesterday or the day before: they're building around Petey/Hughes/Demko in the context of salary cap problems, so they have to get creative in acquiring middle 6 forwards/top 4 defensemen.

Their biggest mistake so far has been re-signing Boeser. It would've been fine if Boeser was producing like Miller. He's not, and he hasn't been for years. But they've also acquired a fantastic winger in Kuzmenko, turned losing Horvat into a top 4 defenseman, and they've improved pro scouting to be probably above average versus downright awful from the previous regime. Hopefully they can continue to find more European free agents like Aman.

I'm not envious of the position they're in, but I've watched hockey long enough to know that there are multiple paths to the cup and pretending like one way is the only way is foolish.

The problem is they are not doing anything unique or innovative. They are acting like contender teams act, while not being a contender team. The assets to do this simply are not there. No draft picks, no prospects, no cap space, no players outperforming their contracts.

Boeser's deal is a mistake, but in the big picture is a non issue. He will be off the books in two years. And we were not competing for anything for the duration of his extension anyways. BUT that money could have been used far more efficiently in a number of ways.

Millers contract has far more dire consequences for the long term success of the team.

 

[arttk]

I mean you are choosing to lie in these conversations...

So I'm sure its confusing when someone tries to be honest.

Uhhh just look up the big tech layoffs in the last couple months and you’ll see I wasn’t lying.

Like I said, you can’t come up with any reason why this is bad other than you don’t like this management group and want this to be bad and have everyone be on your side. Its really bloody obvious, should try to at least pretend to be objective.