Management Threads | Structure. Standards. Habits.

[bossram]

I don’t know why we still debate that Pitt did not value Smith.
We know that we were in discussion for Marino and that our 1st was off limits. We know that Pitts preferred NJ’s package over ours so that means Smith and 3rd was better that the best we could offer which would not include a 1st. We know top4 guys are traded usually for 1st and 2/3rd. With that you can deduct that pitts valued Smith as a 1st.

You can’t really say because we traded our EXTRA 1st for Hronek it meant we were willing to trade our own 1st. The value between our 1st and an extra 1st is very very different especially considering at that point in time the management team haven’t made the decision between Bo or Miller and didn’t know if they would even trade both of them or 1 of them and that they would get an extra 1st.

Also I don’t know why you guys continue to think that a former mid 1st round pick that trended well enough to play in the NHL in D+3, put up .5ppg in his rookie year and made the all rookie team would suddenly be worth shit because of a sophomore slump where the whole team was absolute dog shit to the point of finishing as a bottom 5 team.

My response: Marino was the player to acquire, figure it out. Had they been more prodigious about building an asset base early, they would have been better able to field an offer.

Was PIT dysfunctional? Yes. So they should have capitalized on the opportunity to acquire a player who fit their core perfectly.

I used to be high on Smith. But you watch him in the NHL, he's not gonna cut it.

 

[RandV]

My response: Marino was the player to acquire, figure it out. Had they been more prodigious about building an asset base early, they would have been better able to field an offer.

Was PIT dysfunctional? Yes. So they should have capitalized on the opportunity to acquire a player who fit their core perfectly.

I used to be high on Smith. But you watch him in the NHL, he's not gonna cut it.

Allvin was hired on Jan 26, he like had a few months to make these calls and with players who had another year left on their contract. And it's not like they would know specifically that John Marino would be available in the summer and was about to have a great season for New Jersey that makes him look like he'd be the perfect long term partner for Quinn Hughes.

This whole topic just reeks of hindsight and cherry picking. There were a handful of players available for cheap that summer due to contract. We only talk about Marino, who wasn't actually that cheap. We did not actually have the assets to reasonable trade for him at the time. But if we took that crappy deal for JT Miller at the deadline that nobody liked then we could have!

 

[bossram]

Allvin was hired on Jan 26, he like had a few months to make these calls and with players who had another year left on their contract. And it's not like they would know specifically that John Marino would be available in the summer and was about to have a great season for New Jersey that makes him look like he'd be the perfect long term partner for Quinn Hughes.

This whole topic just reeks of hindsight and cherry picking. There were a handful of players available for cheap that summer due to contract. We only talk about Marino, who wasn't actually that cheap. We did not actually have the assets to reasonable trade for him at the time. But if we took that crappy deal for JT Miller at the deadline that nobody liked then we could have!

Yes, I would have preferred to trade Miller and acquire Marino.

No, it's not hindsight analysis when I was saying Marino was the guy they should have acquired the day NJ traded for him.

 

[racerjoe]

So we are paying more in salary, to be worse down the middle and have a worse PK, but maybe have a better long term partner for Hughes, but probably more issues on the 2nd pair?

 

[Canucker]

So we are paying more in salary, to be worse down the middle and have a worse PK, but maybe have a better long term partner for Hughes, but probably more issues on the 2nd pair?

I'm not sure its possible to have a worse PK? lol

 

[racerjoe]

I'm not sure its possible to have a worse PK? lol

I meant then this season.

 

[TruGr1t]

There's been some good players moved the prior two seasons, but where's the bargains this summer? Going with centers the guys on the move were an aging and/or washed up Kevin Hayes and Ryan Johansen, for 2nd round picks you have Alex Kerfoot and Ross Colton, in free agency the biggest signings were an aging Ryan O'Reilly and more of an elite 3rd line center JT Compher. For a center with an equivalent impact to JT Miller was Pierre-Luc Dubois whom LA paid a heavy price for.

Like if after trading Miller previously a year or two from now with 'the plan' coming together we need to reacquire an impact center to play behind Miller from the LA example that's likely to be leaving you wishing we had just kept Miller rather than practically given him away a few years ago.

The point would have been to rotate out of long-term veteran contracts, while making room for extensions to the young core. Would they have been as good as Miller, probably not, but they'd have been signed for a heck of a lot less term and you'd have more cap flexibility to address the various holes all over the line-up.

People seem to think you trade Miller purely for futures, and then don't use that salary space to replace him and then some. I give them a bit of leeway since there was no way to really predict the market for forwards would basically see half the league being given away for free, but I mean that doesn't excuse them from stalwartly refusing to operate with any salary cap space, nor opening any sort of flexibility to take advantage of the flat cap. There's really been an unprecedented opportunity to do exactly what this management team apparently wants to do, and they missed it all.

I actually believe if they'd acted more decisively over the past 24 months, the team could have been better positioned to compete near-term, and they'd have been able to have a much more favourable position when it comes to cap design and contract structure/term.

They seemed to have figured this out based on some of the FA work this summer (i.e. short-term contracts for veterans), but it may be too late.

 

[RandV]

Yes, I would have preferred to trade Miller and acquire Marino.

No, it's not hindsight analysis when I was saying Marino was the guy they should have acquired the day NJ traded for him.

See what I'm getting at here is at the time you trade Miller you don't know these are the assets you will need to acquire Marino.

And let's be realistic here, the Rangers offer for Miller was terrible value for the asset, seemed a lot like established GM's trying to take advantage of the new guy. Canuck fans got really excited about a potential Miller trade because they were expecting something like Tampa for Coleman/Goodrow but scaled up to reflect Miller's value vs those two. I said at the time that was expecting too much, but what we actually got offered was much closer to a deadline rental price for Miller that ignored his second year on a bargain contract. The trade we actually ended up making with Horvat a year later was roughly equivalent in value.

So if you wanted the assets to acquire Marino you had to have previously sold low on Miller, where at the time of the trade you wouldn't know who was going to be available but just have a vague notion that you would have more cap space to spend in the summer. See the problem? And it's not like cap space was actually the issue we didn't get Marino, as the team had the space to sign Boeser and Mikheyev.

 

[bossram]

See what I'm getting at here is at the time you trade Miller you don't know these are the assets you will need to acquire Marino.

And let's be realistic here, the Rangers offer for Miller was terrible value for the asset, seemed a lot like established GM's trying to take advantage of the new guy. Canuck fans got really excited about a potential Miller trade because they were expecting something like Tampa for Coleman/Goodrow but scaled up to reflect Miller's value vs those two. I said at the time that was expecting too much, but what we actually got offered was much closer to a deadline rental price for Miller that ignored his second year on a bargain contract. The trade we actually ended up making with Horvat a year later was roughly equivalent in value.

So if you wanted the assets to acquire Marino you had to have previously sold low on Miller, where at the time of the trade you wouldn't know who was going to be available but just have a vague notion that you would have more cap space to spend in the summer. See the problem? And it's not like cap space was actually the issue we didn't get Marino, as the team had the space to sign Boeser and Mikheyev.

No. Because they should have been retooling to get younger and recouping assets anyway.

And no, Allvin should have better protected his cap space to capitalize/add to the blueline, rather than commit the remainder of his cap space to more wingers.

 

[arttk]

No. Because they should have been retooling to get younger and recouping assets anyway.

And no, Allvin should have better protected his cap space to capitalize/add to the blueline, rather than commit the remainder of his cap space to more wingers.

Probably easier to respond to this than the other one.
Marino was traded POST draft/FA, meaning whatever Pitts did at FA cemented their decision to trade Marino. Even if we sold Miller, at that point in time, that 1st rounder would've been used already and you would still end up in the same point where the only trade asset we have is our own 1st in 2023.

You can't ignore the timeline and assume that well if we have a 1st from Miller then we can trade for Marino before the draft by using that 1st. There was a reason why the trade happened after July 1st.

 

[bossram]

Probably easier to respond to this than the other one.
Marino was traded POST draft/FA, meaning whatever Pitts did at FA cemented their decision to trade Marino. Even if we sold Miller, at that point in time, that 1st rounder would've been used already and you would still end up in the same point where the only trade asset we have is our own 1st in 2023.

You can't ignore the timeline and assume that well if we have a 1st from Miller then we can trade for Marino before the draft by using that 1st. There was a reason why the trade happened after July 1st.

I'm saying they should have been accumulating assets. As in, accumulate other assets besides this singular draft pick tyou are focussing on.

If Lundkvist was in the package, he was valued as a 1st by DAL. Maybe he can replace Smith in a Marino trade. Maybe you move him separately for the 1st, and use that. Or they liquidate other pieces.

Of course it's all moot down. Allvin committed to all-in playoffs from the moment they re-signed Miller. They failed last season. They can't fail again.

 

[arttk]

I'm saying they should have been accumulating assets. As in, accumulate other assets besides this singular draft pick tyou are focussing on.

If Lundkvist was in the package, he was valued as a 1st by DAL. Maybe he can replace Smith in a Marino trade. Maybe you move him separately for the 1st, and use that. Or they liquidate other pieces.

Of course it's all moot down. Allvin committed to all-in playoffs from the moment they re-signed Miller. They failed last season. They can't fail again.

Lundkvist was tracking badly for NYR and his attractiveness comes from the fact that he was buried by NYR's depth. I've said this before, if we traded for that package at the TDL, his value would've tanked with us because he would actually get a shot and other GMs will see that's hes actually not a very good defender.

 

[F A N]

Allvin was hired on Jan 26, he like had a few months to make these calls and with players who had another year left on their contract. And it's not like they would know specifically that John Marino would be available in the summer and was about to have a great season for New Jersey that makes him look like he'd be the perfect long term partner for Quinn Hughes.

This whole topic just reeks of hindsight and cherry picking. There were a handful of players available for cheap that summer due to contract. We only talk about Marino, who wasn't actually that cheap. We did not actually have the assets to reasonable trade for him at the time. But if we took that crappy deal for JT Miller at the deadline that nobody liked then we could have!

Well Allvin was an "insider" and it's not like the Marino trade rumours didn't swirl for some time before he was traded. It wasn't a trade that came out of left field. IIRC we even discussed the possibility prior to Marino being traded.

In terms of how Marino would perform, I think that's absolutely something that we absolutely can expect our management to get it right given the closeup view three members of upper management have had had over the years.

In terms of assets it's hard to say. The Penguins might have targeted Ty Smith and if that's the case we don't really haven't something reasonably comparable to offer. But if the ask was Rathbone and a 2nd round pick (which was speculated) that's a different matter. I tend to believe that outside of the Penguins fixating on Ty Smith, I think if there is a will there is usually a way.

 

[TruGr1t]

Lundkvist was tracking badly for NYR and his attractiveness comes from the fact that he was buried by NYR's depth. I've said this before, if we traded for that package at the TDL, his value would've tanked with us because he would actually get a shot and other GMs will see that's hes actually not a very good defender.

You keep missing the entire argument by focusing on one specific deal, or asset. It’s impossible to say what the roster would have looked like if they’d gone in a different direction because they didn’t.

The point is there have been numerous instances where quality players on short-term deals have been moved for peanuts and the Canucks have never even been in a position to be in the conversation because they refuse to at any point operate with excess cap space or roster flexibility.

If you’re concern is they wouldn’t have been able to insulate the younger guys with vets that really doesn’t seem to be the case since quality vets were regularly moved over the past two summers cap dumps and would have been relatively cheap to acquire.

Numerous GMs have figured this out. The Canucks are constantly salary-in for salary-out and are consistently over the cap.

Teams that have actually retooled on the fly, or improved, have typically benefitted from the flat-cap environment.

 

[arttk]

You keep missing the entire argument by focusing on one specific deal, or asset. It’s impossible to say what the roster would have looked like if they’d gone in a different direction because they didn’t.

The point is there have been numerous instances where quality players on short-term deals have been moved for peanuts and the Canucks have never even been in a position to be in the conversation because they refuse to at any point operate with excess cap space or roster flexibility.

If you’re concern is they wouldn’t have been able to insulate the younger guys with vets that really doesn’t seem to be the case since quality vets were regularly moved over the past two summers cap dumps and would have been relatively cheap to acquire.

Numerous GMs have figured this out. The Canucks are constantly salary-in for salary-out and are consistently over the cap.

Teams that have actually retooled on the fly, or improved, have typically benefitted from the flat-cap environment.

You guys keep floating at the high level and never bothered to think about the damn details.

You mentioned "quality" players on short term deals we "missed out on" but neglect to think about the fact that 99% of them aren't a good fit for this team. Honestly, who did we actually miss out on? Johansen? Hayes?

Like if the goal is to rebuild by trading away all the assets, why the f*** would you pickup or trade for those guys? just so you can be in the mushy middle? If the goal is to retool, then why the f*** would you pickup those guys especially it doesn't make the team stronger in areas that we are weak at. That's the problem when you argue at a high level and use terms like "Quality" so liberally.

The Canucks are asset poor because of Benning decisions. You can't do a speed run and get a ton of assets within a year. The team is thin on talent, asset and low in cap and on top of that, the "assets" we have are on shit contracts so we need to wait it out. It's so f***ing pointless to see you guys argue why don't we trade XYZ away, like no shit we want to trade away a bunch of guys but 90% of them are on toxic contracts that nobody wants.

 

[TruGr1t]

You guys keep floating at the high level and never bothered to think about the damn details.

You mentioned "quality" players on short term deals we "missed out on" but neglect to think about the fact that 99% of them aren't a good fit for this team. Honestly, who did we actually miss out on? Johansen? Hayes?

Like if the goal is to rebuild by trading away all the assets, why the f*** would you pickup or trade for those guys? just so you can be in the mushy middle? If the goal is to retool, then why the f*** would you pickup those guys especially it doesn't make the team stronger in areas that we are weak at. That's the problem when you argue at a high level and use terms like "Quality" so liberally.

The Canucks are asset poor because of Benning decisions. You can't do a speed run and get a ton of assets within a year. The team is thin on talent, asset and low in cap and on top of that, the "assets" we have are on shit contracts so we need to wait it out. It's so f***ing pointless to see you guys argue why don't we trade XYZ away, like no shit we want to trade away a bunch of guys but 90% of them are on toxic contracts that nobody wants.

This is completely separate from the "rebuild crowd" argument you've been making, though. Yes, they're in a tough spot, but that doesn't excuse the fact they've missed opportunities and remain capped out.

You don't have to be a fan of tearing it down to want more efficient navigation of the cap and roster. They're showing some promise this summer in terms of contracts (would be enhanced if they can move Myers and re-allocate that salary to centre and the wing).

I just think it's a bit simplistic to say a large part of the critical fan base is a "rebuild" crowd. There's plenty they could have done that they didn't, and we're still capped out with massive holes on the roster.

 

[arttk]

This is completely separate from the "rebuild crowd" argument you've been making, though. Yes, they're in a tough spot, but that doesn't excuse the fact they've missed opportunities and remain capped out.

You don't have to be a fan of tearing it down to want more efficient navigation of the cap and roster. They're showing some promise this summer in terms of contracts (would be enhanced if they can move Myers and re-allocate that salary to centre and the wing).

I just think it's a bit simplistic to say a large part of the critical fan base is a "rebuild" crowd. There's plenty they could have done that they didn't, and we're still capped out with massive holes on the roster.

You can’t really complain about lost opportunities when a lot of them don’t help this team.

You don’t walk into a mall and gobble up everything that is on sale because of “opportunities”. Lost opportunity only applies when there are players that would genuinely help the team that are traded for a cheap rate.

Throwing away good players for less so you can pickup someone that is 60% as good to fill the hole you created is not smart no matter how you cut it.

 

[VanillaCoke]

In summation we had/have no possible assets for any impact trades, no cap space, no roster flexibility, anchor contracts, no opportunities to sell high, and all the players moved for practically nothing aren't a fit or wouldnt work here.

Team is still about the same mediocre as last year (decade) but we have to compete now because EP will leave.

We need some difference maker changes to happen sooner than later, it's been 18 months, other teams seem to be having no issues, when do the excuses for mgmt dry up?

Surely by opening night some change has to happen to improve the roster right? Right?!

 

[strattonius]

In summation we had/have no possible assets for any impact trades, no cap space, no roster flexibility, anchor contracts, no opportunities to sell high, and all the players moved for practically nothing aren't a fit or wouldnt work here.

Team is still about the same mediocre as last year (decade) but we have to compete now because EP will leave.

We need some difference maker changes to happen sooner than later, it's been 18 months, other teams seem to be having no issues, when do the excuses for mgmt dry up?

Surely by opening night some change has to happen to improve the roster right? Right?!

3 of our 4 top four dmen are different next season.

OEL buyout.

Traded 5 year captain in big deal to Islanders.

Acquired Hronek in big deal from Wings.

Major overhaul to our development program.



What the hell change are you not keeping up with? This management has been one of the busiest in the league over the last 2 years and we're finally seeing the last of these dumb Benning contracts expire.

Try to keep up things are trending the right way.

 

[arttk]

In summation we had/have no possible assets for any impact trades, no cap space, no roster flexibility, anchor contracts, no opportunities to sell high, and all the players moved for practically nothing aren't a fit or wouldnt work here.

Team is still about the same mediocre as last year (decade) but we have to compete now because EP will leave.

We need some difference maker changes to happen sooner than later, it's been 18 months, other teams seem to be having no issues, when do the excuses for mgmt dry up?

Surely by opening night some change has to happen to improve the roster right? Right?!

if you guys are talking about how we need to trade guys and get assets without touching Petey, Demko amd Hughes, the only real trade assets we had are Horvat, Miller, Kuzmenko and Kuzmenko wasn’t here for the 1st off-season.

Garland and Boeser require retention and even then you can debate the value you would get back.

OEL had sever negative value.

I guess you can say Pod and Hog has some value. Schenn, Hamonic and Lazar and Stillman had some nominal value.

 

[CanucksSayEh]

Boeser just turned 26, he's our current longest tenured player. This team has seen a lot of turnover.

 

[Peen]

Boeser just turned 26, he's our current longest tenured player. This team has seen a lot of turnover.

I go back and forth a lot between who I’d rather keep between Brock and Garland.

Garland is cheaper but a year longer. Can easily drive offense on a third line but is too expensive for that role. Has had no success next to our top six c’s. He also hasn’t ever seemed to settle in the market from an outside perspective.

Boeser has a history of success with our top six c’s but his game has fallen off a cliff. He clearly wants to be here.

I think I lean towards keeping Garland still, but to be honest, I don’t overly care. They’re both problematic for different reasons.

 

[DFAC]

I go back and forth a lot between who I’d rather keep between Brock and Garland.

Garland is cheaper but a year longer. Can easily drive offense on a third line but is too expensive for that role. Has had no success next to our top six c’s. He also hasn’t ever seemed to settle in the market from an outside perspective.

Boeser has a history of success with our top six c’s but his game has fallen off a cliff. He clearly wants to be here.

I think I lean towards keeping Garland still, but to be honest, I don’t overly care. They’re both problematic for different reasons.

The correct answer is neither. Move them both to clear up cap and create opportunities for guys like Podkolzin and Hoglander.

Use the freed up cap space to upgrade 3C and to find another top 4 dman

 

[valkynax]

The correct answer is neither. Move them both to clear up cap and create opportunities for guys like Podkolzin and Hoglander.

Use the freed up cap space to upgrade 3C and to find another top 4 dman

Moving them right now, I feel, will either cost us more assets or we basically get nothing in return. Maybe the team's direction at the moment is to keep both, hoping for them to rebound somewhat in the upcoming season, so that we can be in a better position to negotiate a trade?

If they don't improve their plays, at least we would've burnt off another year of their contract, right?

 

[MarkMM]

Moving them right now, I feel, will either cost us more assets or we basically get nothing in return. Maybe the team's direction at the moment is to keep both, hoping for them to rebound somewhat in the upcoming season, so that we can be in a better position to negotiate a trade?

If they don't improve their plays, at least we would've burnt off another year of their contract, right?

That seems to be the least bad of options for now, yeah.