Rutherford's is a 3-year contract that expires after 23-24. I believe Allvin has the same length but I can't find anything to confirm that.
Management Threads | Structure. Standards. Habits.
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Rutherford's is a 3-year contract that expires after 23-24. I believe Allvin has the same length but I can't find anything to confirm that.
I'd be quite surprised if Allvin only signed a 2.5 year deal. Benning got a 4-year contract when he was hired which is pretty much standard for a new GM.
Agreed and I wouldn't be shocked if it was a 4 year deal. I just remember hearing it was a 3 year deal, which I found odd at the time. There's not a good list anywhere like there is for coaches on Capfriendly.
me2
Go ahead foot
I can buy 3 years. Easy to replace mid-season 24-25 if the team isn't in a playoff spot at that point. Let his contact time out saves Aquaman from having to pay another sacked executive/coach.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,924
- 7,835
Exactly. Their fate should rest upon that execution. They are the ones who set the bar and their current roster state. (Beauvillier and Hronek).
To me, they are likely to fail just given the landscape. The context. And so, you have to look at them acting against the grain as a hope based methodology. Not good, but hey, anything is possible. Wait and see.
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
Oh Rutherford's deal is that short...
Unless we go on a cinderella run next year he is probably not returning.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 17,961
- 23,623
I don't really see anyway Rutherford isn't back unless it's by his own choosing. FA isn't going to walk away from JR (or fire PA) if they miss the playoffs again.
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
Really?
I think JR wont want to be back.
His tenure here has been pretty awful thus far, for both parties.
theguardianII
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2020
- 3,984
- 1,969
I think these contracts were "show me" deals or just caretaker deals.
3 years would have been enough to tear down the team to get cap control but Allvin decided to operate for his next job.
JR moved here with his family and I think he took the 3 year deal just because of his age. As is common knowledge Canadian markets can be/are brutal on front office people.
You would think a short term contract would make for bold moves, maybe even unpopular moves. Here to do a job, maybe not the one fans think though.
One thing that has been accomplished is basically 2 to 3 more years of bottom feeding has been tempered by the hope of big changes which haven't really happened yet.
There has been a lot of confusion caused by conflicting messages, JR stated what is considered the "right or proper way" to build a cup contender but Allvin is doing a "Benning 2.0".
I also think Aquilini has built in a "breaker switch" so another Benning doesn't happen. A two or three year deal gives the "candidate's" lots of time to show what he has, an extended probationary period. The entire front office are in school learning how to do new jobs, is Vancouver the learning ground for hockey executives? Linden, Benning, Willie, Green, Allvin and all the chipmunks all rookies. Odd isn't it?
Is there another top hockey executive's contract expiring next year? Another GM? BriseBois, Shanahan, ? It won't be Jeremy Jacobs the owner of the Boston Bruins who runs the team and is very, very hands on with his hockey team, not quite as much as Jerry Jones and more behind the scene's.
The draft and summer will tell the tale of the tape.
BrentSopelsHair
Registered User
I would pay $1000It would be prophetic if Jim Benning gets hired as GM of the Maple Leafs. We all know how that story will end.
BrentSopelsHair
Registered User
I agree on this. There should be zero qualifying of their moves/record if this is a failure. "Look at the hand they were dealt here" cannot be an excuse because they had a choice to make when they signed on, to either continue to build on sand or to try to build a new foudnation.
If they don't meet their goals the bags should be packed
The OEL buyout penalty looks like a no brainer. Every team in the league carries that much or more dead weight. It would be a lot more embarrassing for him if it were to happen mid season after a poor start. Just rip off the band aid.
strattonius
Registered User
I think management has decided since we are unlikely to be a contender this season it's more beneficial to wait another year to get that much more relief. There's also the off chance OEL has a bounce back season.
Logistically buying out OEL makes little sense for this upcoming season.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 17,961
- 23,623
While i agree with pushing an OEL buyout back, I don't think management has decided that at all.
The $ difference looks negligible. Just based off age of our top players, If there were odds for all of them having career years at the same time, it's a good bet for 23/24. They are ready to go right tf now.
strattonius
Registered User
Sure our core is entering its prime but it's our depth that needs a couple years before we are truly a contender.
Too many questions on defense. Heavy CAP tied to wingers. I think a lot of this stuff can be fixed in a couple years but expecting this team to catapult up the standings next year is too hopeful.
Maybe if they are targeting a UFA that will sign with us and the only way to alleviate the CAP and get this player is an OEL buyout - or something like that. It can't be off the table of ideas I agree.
But just in general I don't think it's likely they are thinking this year.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 17,961
- 23,623
Whether or not it's realistic, I think they are 100% trying to contend and will go for it this season.
Weather our management can do it or not, it doesn't have to take years to improve.
strattonius
Registered User
We are talking about buying out OEL. You can bump this if it happens but I would be shocked if they did it this year.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 17,961
- 23,623
I'm agreeing with you about OEL but disagreeing with you on management's outlook on the season. They are 100% trying to compete and make the playoffs this year.
strattonius
Registered User
Of course they are. But that doesn't mean they aren't realistic about what their odds are next year.
We're playing hockey here. Highly variable sport. With a couple of things clicking we could be fighting for top of the Pacific it's not that unrealistic. But I think for next year they are looking at a wildcard spot and progressing further in 2 yrs, etc.
100% disagree. Everything this management has done and said indicates that they expect to make the playoffs next year. Hell, I think Alvin was legitimately surprised and upset that they failed to make the playoffs this year.
Last edited:
Yeah but have you seen moves that scream Benning level desperation?
I think they are going to make moves to reshape the roster but I don’t think they are going to go full desperation by trading our high 1st and giving out stupid ass overpaid contracts to old ass vets.
strattonius
Registered User
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
I think they already did with Miller.
That contract is a very short sighted move.
Dont know if I would cassify it as desperate. Just a move that should be good for the team now and bad later.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Much Ado About Nothing
- Latest: CanucksSayEh
