Management Threads | Structure. Standards. Habits.

[MarkusNaslund19]

So Allvin was quoted as stating that the team "saw a huge boost in momentum after a coaching change" and he's very hopeful about that, seemingly forgetting that the exact same thing happened with Boudreau the previous year and we all know how that turned out.

Management used Boudreau as a scapegoat all season and fired him right before the easiest stretch of the Canucks schedule.

There's more evidence that the team will quit on their coach than buy-in at this point in time.

This is right up there with people who believe the earth is flat because they live in the Prairies and can't see the curvature of the earth from their living room.

At 10,000 foot first blush it looks similar based entirely on that one premise (we had a massive bump two years in a row right after a coaching change and one year it was unsustainable).

But you fail to consider that our GM isn't some guy on a message board clicking refresh on Sportsnet's website hoping for PR pieces.

He sees how the sausage is made and, indeed, has a big hand in how it gets made.

So you, from 10,000 feet can make out the blurry outline of something and say it reminds you of the thing that turned out to be a plane falling from the sky, but the mission control who is in constant contact with both pilots can tell the myriad differences between each occasion.

Put it another way.

Let's say a school had a problem with low attendance, low morale, and low test scores.

They hire a teacher and things improve for awhile, but he turns out to be a creep or something and they need to fire him.

They hire another teacher, morale goes up, attendance goes up, test scores go up.

You then assume he's a pervert too? Just because the last success was a mirage means that all success is a mirage?

Would it be better to you if they had collapsed under Tocchet? Like what feedback would have had any impact whatsoever on your already firmly held opinion?

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

agreed with this completely - and where one might define it as "possible" - i think it perfectly illustrates just how hard the challenge of putting together a contender right now is.

like i said, let's even pretend that hronek is already our version of toews and we've landed a top pairing defenseman for not much like the avs did. we still need to turn a tyson barrie (tyler myers) into a kadri-level top-6 staple, have a prospect on the verge of playing in europe (one of hoglander, kravtsov or podkolzin) breakout into a possession monster like nichushkin did, add a couple more top-6 wingers using just draft picks... or in other words, have a lot of things go very right, and a lot of other things continue to hold.

it's possible, but it's a very tall order.

This is to become a super-team that occurs like once every 20 years to a franchise if they're lucky.

Even Colorado the following year wasn't even close to their 2022 team, so if that's your barometer then you are literally going to be content 5 percent of the time at most.

 

[vancityluongo]

This is to become a super-team that occurs like once every 20 years to a franchise if they're lucky.

Even Colorado the following year wasn't even close to their 2022 team, so if that's your barometer then you are literally going to be content 5 percent of the time at most.

isn't that everyone's eventual hope for the team?

that's not mutually exclusive from following or being "content" through periods of less success (ie. the canucks entire existence minus 2011) - we're still some time away from watching nhl rosters play hockey, so there have been discussions reviewing the offseason and wondering where the team should go from here. why else would you and i be posting on this board for a combined 35 years lol

 

[arttk]

isn't that everyone's eventual hope for the team?

I think everyone wants to have that but you need to be exceptionally lucky to build teams like that. NJD might get there but people should recognize that they were INSANELY lucky. They won the lottery like 3 times in 5 years and for those years where they didn't win the lottery ,they luck into guys like Luke Hughes.

Colorado lucked into MacK and then they f***ed up right when Makar was available and also lucked into Ottawa imploding shooting that 1st round to the moon.

We have a good base, and we should continue to add pieces every year and if you have like a good 1C, 1D, 1W and 1G, you really just need to be lucky once like Dallas with Robertson and you will have the 1 or 2 additional piece that will put you over.

I think the thing is, people somehow believe that if you tear everything down, the odds of you being Colorado, Avs and Tampa will be higher. It won't be. The odds of us hitting on a random draft pick is equally low as us winning multiple draft lotteries in the right year where there is a 1C or 1D.

 

[Diogenes92]

This is right up there with people who believe the earth is flat because they live in the Prairies and can't see the curvature of the earth from their living room.

At 10,000 foot first blush it looks similar based entirely on that one premise (we had a massive bump two years in a row right after a coaching change and one year it was unsustainable).

But you fail to consider that our GM isn't some guy on a message board clicking refresh on Sportsnet's website hoping for PR pieces.

He sees how the sausage is made and, indeed, has a big hand in how it gets made.

So you, from 10,000 feet can make out the blurry outline of something and say it reminds you of the thing that turned out to be a plane falling from the sky, but the mission control who is in constant contact with both pilots can tell the myriad differences between each occasion.

Put it another way.

Let's say a school had a problem with low attendance, low morale, and low test scores.

They hire a teacher and things improve for awhile, but he turns out to be a creep or something and they need to fire him.

They hire another teacher, morale goes up, attendance goes up, test scores go up.

You then assume he's a pervert too? Just because the last success was a mirage means that all success is a mirage?

Would it be better to you if they had collapsed under Tocchet? Like what feedback would have had any impact whatsoever on your already firmly held opinion?

Some substance would've been nice.

Not just "I disagree with you but have nothing of actual meaning to say".

 

[TruGr1t]

All the typical preseason bloviating and cliche means nothing and should be ignored. This organization has been admirably arrogant while being terrible for like 10 years. Every off-season is the same. I’ll believe it when I see it.

They either make the playoffs this year or most of them are on different teams next summer.

 

[Raistlin]

Yeah I was looking at doing some replies to my posting there but it gets kind of circular. What I try to get across is that there isn't really a proven 'model' to win the Stanley Cup, otherwise why wouldn't anyone everyone else be doing it? Rather to actually win the Cup you have to pull off some manner of what Colorado accomplished there, and it can take a few years to get it right.

there is no "one model", but the model where the team only goes beast mode after being essentially eliminated by christmas is not the way to go. If detroit or stl picked willander ahead of us, we would've have no high end talent on D coming through the pipe on the horizon, unless you count ASP. If the team falters again early, even with Pettersson's dire warning. do you honestly want them to once again repeat the futile attempt to just miss the playoffs again? If they fail again, I dont believe the core deserves the unwavering optimism of the fanbase, if EP wants to leave, we should find every avenue and build the team the right way starting in 2024. That means not Lafrenierre Othmann and Chytil, it means Jiricek and high picks.

The correct way to build a team is to have a bad goaltending situation, empty out the elite talent, and have high end defensemen coming in. Keep captain Hughes(?), empty out the rest, wait for the buyouts and bad contracts expire.... (good luck with Miller's) and build with solid guys like Lekk/Willander/EP(D)/Hughes as core.

EP made it easy for Aqualini. if he forces his way out after another failed season, all the hronek trades in the world wont fix this shoddily cobbled together canuck ship. Burn it to the ground. These next few months will matter a lot. IF management continues with this stupid blueprint after EP dips out the way Calgary did to extend their window post Tkachuk/JG, I'm unequivocally out.

I am hoping that they make the playoffs this year, I believe they should, I believe they just make it in, but its going to take a miracle to turn this group into a year after year contender.

 

[Diogenes92]

All the typical preseason bloviating and cliche means nothing and should be ignored. This organization has been admirably arrogant while being terrible for like 10 years. Every off-season is the same. I’ll believe it when I see it.

They either make the playoffs this year or most of them are on different teams next summer.

This is basically it.

Im surprised that with the recent history of this team that more fans don't have this approach.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

This is basically it.

Im surprised that with the recent history of this team that more fans don't have this approach.

Screw that.
We are currently at the point of the season where anything can happen. It feels damn good to be at .500 again. Let me savour this moment.

 

[andora]

This is basically it.

Im surprised that with the recent history of this team that more fans don't have this approach.

Because in general they are fans, not analytical process scrutinizing people like ourselves.

If everyone had that approach the building would be damn near empty and people would be marching around outside with draft pick signs

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Some substance would've been nice.

Not just "I disagree with you but have nothing of actual meaning to say".

The substance is that you are using one very blunt distant data point to make global comparisons and come to a firm and bitter conclusion.

Literally the only commonality is that a coaching change occurred, the team improved, and people were buoyed by this fact.

You're acting like Allvin also only has that one blurry data point to go off of. When he sees all of the processes behind the scenes and clearly feels they are entirely distinct.

 

[RobertKron]

The substance is that you are using one very blunt distant data point to make global comparisons and come to a firm and bitter conclusion.

Literally the only commonality is that a coaching change occurred, the team improved, and people were buoyed by this fact.

You're acting like Allvin also only has that one blurry data point to go off of. When he sees all of the processes behind the scenes and clearly feels they are entirely distinct.

On the flip side, you're kind of saying "hey, the priest told me that God is real, and the priest knows way more about God than you do so you'd better take their word for it!"

 

[Diogenes92]

Because in general they are fans, not analytical process scrutinizing people like ourselves.

If everyone had that approach the building would be damn near empty and people would be marching around outside with draft pick signs

Maybe ownership wouldve gotten their act together by now and put in new seats.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

On the flip side, you're kind of saying "hey, the priest told me that God is real, and the priest knows way more about God than you do so you'd better take their word for it!"

Hardly.

Teams fire coaches and improve all of the time.

This is not remotely like me myopically viewing the entire world through a dogmatic adherence to one particular religion's interpretation of events.

 

[Diogenes92]

The substance is that you are using one very blunt distant data point to make global comparisons and come to a firm and bitter conclusion.

Literally the only commonality is that a coaching change occurred, the team improved, and people were buoyed by this fact.

You're acting like Allvin also only has that one blurry data point to go off of. When he sees all of the processes behind the scenes and clearly feels they are entirely distinct.

I was drawing a comparison to something that happened only a season ago, mostly out of dark humour. Its sounded like a broken record and I couldn't help myself.

Also, Allvin hasn't earned a lick of trust from me so it doesn't really mean much. Base competence isn't impressive just because he replaced the worst GM of all time.

I suppose I have higher standards than some fans on here.

 

[RobertKron]

Hardly.

Teams fire coaches and improve all of the time.

This is not remotely like me myopically viewing the entire world through a dogmatic adherence to one particular religion's interpretation of events.

lol you declared that someone believing that the change in fortunes under Tocchet might be a new coach bump, and giving their reasoning as to why they believed that was the same as being a flat earther for daring to disagree with you, and you want to talk about dogmatic adherence. Your entire position boils down to Alvin is the priest (lets ignore that he's far from an impartial opinion on the matter) and you aren't so you're not allowed to question him.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

lol you declared that someone believing that the change in fortunes under Tocchet might be a new coach bump was the same as being a flat earther.

I can see where you didn't grasp the substance of the analogy.

Here it is:

Flat earthers erroneously believe that because they don't understand something, can't see it with their own eyes, have low information- that this means that nobody has that info, that everyone is extrapolating from the same level of info that they have or that anyone with more info is a part of some wild conspiracy (the conspiracy part is not relevant to this analogy).

Similarly, from afar all we can really see is that in both cases the coaches were replaced and things changed. One time that was fool's gold, however this has basically no bearing on the next time.

For one thing, Tocchet is actually the braintrusts' guy.

For another, if you interacted with the team, observed practices, spoke to the captains, etc etc you would have many many insights on how different the culture is under Tocchet compared to prior. In fact, many interviews with players, while carefully trying not to throw bruce under the bus, have said just that explicitly.

So they are saying, 'this time it is different' and there is a mountain of evidence that we can see externally, but galaxies of potential evidence that someone who is on the inside is going to be aware of.

Does it seem like the coaches all work towards the same goal? How is delegation? is the leadership structure clear and delineated? Is there accountability? etc etc etc etc.

So saying Allvin's dumb because he's just expecting that new coach bump will be real 'just like last year', is indeed quite like a flat earther asserting that his low-info opinion is just as valid as scientist's whose knowledge is literally based on the summation of all human knowedge, uses intruments and observation, etc.

 

[RobertKron]

I can see where you didn't grasp the substance of the analogy.

Here it is:

Flat earthers erroneously believe that because they don't understand something, can't see it with their own eyes, have low information- that this means that nobody has that info, that everyone is extrapolating from the same level of info that they have or that anyone with more info is a part of some wild conspiracy (the conspiracy part is not relevant to this analogy).

Similarly, from afar all we can really see is that in both cases the coaches were replaced and things changed. One time that was fool's gold, however this has basically no bearing on the next time.

For one thing, Tocchet is actually the braintrusts' guy.

For another, if you interacted with the team, observed practices, spoke to the captains, etc etc you would have many many insights on how different the culture is under Tocchet compared to prior. In fact, many interviews with players, while carefully trying not to throw bruce under the bus, have said just that explicitly.

So they are saying, 'this time it is different' and there is a mountain of evidence that we can see externally, but galaxies of potential evidence that someone who is on the inside is going to be aware of.

Does it seem like the coaches all work towards the same goal? How is delegation? is the leadership structure clear and delineated? Is there accountability? etc etc etc etc.

So saying Allvin's dumb because he's just expecting that new coach bump will be real 'just like last year', is indeed quite like a flat earther asserting that his low-info opinion is just as valid as scientist's whose knowledge is literally based on the summation of all human knowedge, uses intruments and observation, etc.

Yes, no shit that's what your analogy meant. Jesus christ.

Allvin is a lot closer to a salesman than a scientist in this instance. He may be right or he may not be, but taking his word at face value as if it were that of f***ing peer-reviewed science because he's the priest and he says so is hilarious bordering on delusional. That you spent howevermany years making the exact same appeal to authority and yelling at everyone how they were wrong about Jim Benning because he's a GM so he is right and that they needed to listen to you about it because you played Junior Z or whatever, and are still banging the exact same drum over and over now is just incredibly special. It's just appeal to authority all the way the f*** down.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Yes, no shit that's what your analogy meant. Jesus christ.

Allvin is a lot closer to a salesman than a scientist in this instance. He may be right or he may not be, but taking his word at face value as if it were that of f***ing peer-reviewed science because he's the priest and he says so is hilarious bordering on delusional. That you spent howevermany years making the exact same appeal to authority and yelling at everyone how they were wrong about Jim Benning and that they needed to listen to you about it because you played Junior Z or whatever, and are still banging the exact same drum now is just incredibly special.

Ooohhhh so this wasn't an earnest exchange.

This was grudge posting because you've felt offended by my opinions in the past.

Good use of time, carry on bruv.

 

[RobertKron]

Ooohhhh so this wasn't an earnest exchange.

This was grudge posting because you've felt offended by my opinions in the past.

Good use of time, carry on bruv.

No, it's an attempt to point out that your argument - always - is "listen to the priest" which is effectively no different than the knee-jerk low information reaction you're accusing OP of having in this thread. What in your opinions is there even to be offended by? It's just "boss guy is right because he's boss guy" ignoring any nuance or motivation or context or really anything. That's not even really much of an opinion.

OP is fully within their rights to believe that the core group isn't one to buy in when their coach demands it. Explain why you think they're wrong to believe that rather than just condescendingly saying "NO the boss said it wasn't like that! The boss knows all the stuff!!!" with extra flowery language.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

.

 

[Peen]

what a great read above thanks

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

No, it's an attempt to point out that your argument - always - is "listen to the priest" which is effectively no different than the knee-jerk low information reaction you're accusing OP of having in this thread. What in your opinions is there even to be offended by? It's just "boss guy is right because he's boss guy" ignoring any nuance or motivation or context or really anything. That's not even really much of an opinion.

OP is fully within their rights to believe that the core group isn't one to buy in when their coach demands it. Explain why you think they're wrong to believe that rather than just condescendingly saying "NO the boss said it wasn't like that! The boss knows all the stuff!!!" with extra flowery language.

It disappoints me that over the last 17 years you have either misunderstood or chosen to misrepresent me as being a pure credentialist who never thinks for himself and thinks that anything the GM does is always correct.

I could dig through my post history to find refutations but I guess I'm not concerned enough about this misunderstanding to spend free labor on it.


-
Anyhow...


I'm really curious how things are going to work out this year.

Feels like there are still some pretty important questions to be answered around roster construction.

I think ideally we want there to be a fairly clear (not easy, but clear) path for Hoglander and Podz to make the team in a fairly significant spot (i.e. not 13th forward) if they show they deserve it.

It seems like one of Myers, Garland, or Pearson needs to go to facilitate that.

Further, if DiGuiseppe is actually going to be a middle sixer, that's one more spot occupied.

Allvin said in a recent article that he has ways of facilitating cap space to be compliant by the end of the year.

Really curious how it will all look.

I will once again stick my neck out by saying I think Hirose is a fairly important D by the last 20 games of the season. He has a poise and degree of hockey sense that can't really be taught. He just needs to work around the drawback of potentially being boxed out of the front of his own net as a smaller D man.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

No, it's an attempt to point out that your argument - always - is "listen to the priest" which is effectively no different than the knee-jerk low information reaction you're accusing OP of having in this thread. What in your opinions is there even to be offended by? It's just "boss guy is right because he's boss guy" ignoring any nuance or motivation or context or really anything. That's not even really much of an opinion.

OP is fully within their rights to believe that the core group isn't one to buy in when their coach demands it. Explain why you think they're wrong to believe that rather than just condescendingly saying "NO the boss said it wasn't like that! The boss knows all the stuff!!!" with extra flowery language.

To quote an early 2000s internet reference, “pwned”

 

[Hit the post]

No, it's an attempt to point out that your argument - always - is "listen to the priest"

You've got another thing coming if you think I'll be listening to the priest...