What deadline was more of a Disaster- 2016 or 2025?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.

What deadline was more of a disaster?

  • 2016 deadline

    Votes: 68 68.0%
  • 2025 deadline

    Votes: 32 32.0%

  • Total voters
    100
Lots of meaningful and spot on comments across this board.

Allvin & R let things spin out of control this year. If you are a top end manager you need to anticipate and get on situations earlier. These type of people are the ones that ultimately win. If you end up letting events or situations overtake you then you, and anything you are trying to run, will turn into a morass. There was very little pro-active are even thoughtful about anything that Canuck management did this off season or during the season.

Some of the players picked up in the off season such as Heinen and Deharnais displayed an ignorance on the part of scouting. Desharnais especially was a joke and whoever advised picking him up should have been fired long ago.

Not getting ahead of the Miller situation led to losing a top end NHL forward and getting back mid level players in return.

Losing Zadorov and then apparently trying to get him was fessing up to a mistake. Letting him walk meant they got nothing. If they had to spend a couple of thousand more would have meant they had, at least, a tradeable commodity. The defense was severely weakened by his loss and the replacement players were not close to being as good.

Whole situation with Pettersson should have been dealt with a long time ago. Just festered away all season.

Relying on Demko to return to form, after his history of injury, was relying on luck rather than reasoned thought. They should have monitored the Demko situation throughout the summer and if there was whiff of news that his injuries were not healing quickly and completely, they should have been on the goalie situation immediately. They did fluke out and get Lakanin but even there they short termed him (and ended up having to pay more) and they were lucky he was still available after they hummed and hawed about signing him.

Now they stumble through the trade deadline. Boeser had to be traded and it should have happened a long time ago. Boeser has always been mediocre (and many occasions less than this) given his overall game. There has been ups and downs but since his back injury when he was driven into the open gate, his skating has never been good enough. I've pushing trading him for years when you could have got something. Now, as the market has firmly established, he has lost most of his value. Other managers and scouts watch him play and can see the problems and the fact that he is a complete non factor most of the time.

I realize the Allvin did have problems moving Boeser but this again illustrates the lack of foresight the team is displaying. They let an asset depreciate and ended up with nothing.

Hard to say which deadline was worse. Likely the Benning one but this is still bad enough. Also the fact that Allvin is comparable to Benning in terms of this deadline is enough to send chills down your spine, Moreover, if Aquaman was allowed to have any say in these moves then present management is gutless and useless.

This team should have definitely been sellers at this trade deadline. Given the Hughes and Demko situations, their lack of offense, management needed to recognize that trying to eke into the playoffs and avoid looking to future, was not the way to go. Most any educated fan of the team could clearly see this and if this managerment couldn't, then they you have wonder if know what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
This was a pretty bad day, but this is nowhere near as bad as 2016. That was also for a team in a very different position that very obviously should have been selling, and with more desirable assets.
 
Benning would have traded the Canucks' first away for Laughton so at least it's not so bad. But the way that Allvin fumbled around today was positively Benning-esque. He's a bad communicator and kind of a prick on top of it.
 
The same old characters doing the same old things...

Anyway, they screwed up. This isn't about competing/not competing. False dichotomy. It's about being decisive.

Teams that are in the hunt can make lateral trades or re-sign their own players before the TDL. This team did neither. It's why 2016 was invoked here and on the radio by multiple broadcasters. They do not see the team doing what well run hockey teams normally do.

That said, 2016 was way, way worse.
 
Benning would have traded the Canucks' first away for Laughton so at least it's not so bad. But the way that Allvin fumbled around today was positively Benning-esque. He's a bad communicator and kind of a prick on top of it.

Incredibly, almost everyone in the local market, video game and non-video game players alike, invoked Benning today.

If that's not an indictment on Allvin/JR, I don't know what is?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: I am toxic
Well we are in a playoff spot kind of caught in the middle and ownership wants to go for the playoffs, so the canucks were probably looking for hockey trades and didn't receive any so staying the course is probably the better option.

As for 2016 we had a clear idea that we needed to rebuild and getting an asset for Dan Hamhuis and Vrbata like a 1st would have been the smart thing to do heck even a 2nd but we decided to go for it even though anyone with half a brain would have traded him so it was obviously 2016 being the disaster of a year.
 
I think me and my buddy went thru the NHL August 2015 before the Sutter trade, and said this is a bottom-5 team. Then the trade unquestionably made us worse, he played 20 games. It was so obviously a sell year, we were where we were in standings on sheer will from select players.

The horeshit they peddled after that has never made me want to walk out of a room I wasn't in faster in my life.

Like, some think that era was kinda bad, but it was multi-generationally horrific. Had to happen. Just not like that.

As of today we control our own fate in the playoff race.

Your disappointment is not my disappointment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: calnuck
I think me and my buddy went thru the NHL August 2015 before the Sutter trade, and said this is a bottom-5 team. Then the trade unquestionably made us worse, he played 20 games. It was so obviously a sell year, we were where we were in standings on sheer will from select players.

The horeshit they peddled after that has never made me want to walk out of a room I wasn't in faster in my life.

Like, some think that era was kinda bad, but it was multi-generationally horrific. Had to happen. Just not like that.

As of today we control our own fate in the playoff race.

Your disappointment is not my disappointment.
Also its not like its was a massive opportunity missed in 2025.

The team is a mess and getting some assets for Suter and Boeser wasnt going to change our fortunes.
 
The premise of this thread is painful. Assumptions of what happens in the future have to be maximally negative to even ask the question.
What if:
-Boeser goes on to score a bunch of goals in the last 21 games and is instrumental in a long playoff run and is resigned for a team friendly deal.
-Suter is that depth player that is absolutely required to go on a playoff run.
-Forbort is a beast in the playoffs when refs put their whistles in their pockets.

While none of these are guaranteed, only in hindsight can one determine whether today's non activity was right or wrong. Come back in 6 months and we can talk.
This is one of the most delusional takes i've seen since the autumn of 2020. What playoff run man? This team is getting destroyed in the first round. Even with Miller still on the team we would get murked. You either bring help for a playoff run or sell. That is what the front office should have been done at this deadline. This team at it's best is half the team we had last march.
 
Right now the answer is 2016 deadline. Speaking of which, let's not forget that Nill thought he had a deal but Benning had to speak to ownership and came back with a different deal. Benning said they never had a deal and Nill chose Russell. AFAIK, the truth has not yet been confirmed. This is reminiscent of Kesler to Penguins at the 2014 deadline where some reporting said Gillis wanted Pouliot included and Rutherford said no while some reporting said there was a deal but was vetoed by ownership.

Whether this deadline is a disaster is a bit too early to tell. A big part of it comes down to Boeser. If we ended up re-signing him then no question you keep him. But if he's going to walk this summer for nothing (or a mid pick for his negotiating rights) then the question is were we really not able to get a 1st for him? Or were we asked to retain salary and we said no? I think keeping Boeser as our own rental is not the right move.

This team isn't hanging onto a playoff spot while our key players are injured and expected back for the playoffs. If that was the case and where a deep playoff run is reasonably possible then I have no issues with the team being buyers (or in our case keeping our pending UFAs as rentals). But that's not the case.

For a team in a playoff position, I would have been okay with being small buyers and adding say Forbort for the value of a late 3rd/our 4th or even Suter for the value of a late 2nd/our 3rd to bolster the playoff run. I wouldn't be adding Forbort, Suter AND Boeser though. Now I heard that we want to bring Forbort back but if we're trading Soucy for a high 3rd could we not trade Forbort for what is expected to be a late 3rd with his playoff experience? Bringing Forbort or somebody similar back shouldn't be a problem. Of course we also dumped Friedman and Brannstrom in other trades leaving us with less depth.
 
3 points out of a playoff spot.
To be fair, pretty much every team in front of them for that final wild card spot has multiple games in hand over them. Combine that with it's hard to leap frog multiple teams at this point in the season (some teams are bound to win some games and or get points via the loser point).
 
  • Like
Reactions: PuckMunchkin
The Athletic gave the Canucks the worst grade in the league for its deadline actions.

So no, people aren't crazy for thinking this was a Benning level f***up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jyrki21
Looking at the remaining schedule for VAN, LAK, CGY, STL and UTA:

I'd still give VAN about 80% odds to make the playoffs, and maybe about 40% to overtake LAK. If that seems overly optimistic, consider just how much has gone against them this year, and realize that despite that, they are in the playoffs, and have better odds to stay there than any of the 3 other teams competing with them have to overtake them. Also, none of those teams upgraded at the TDL to make a push, which says a lot.

Now, looking at things a bit on the contrary: based on what was being rumoured / discussed, I think it's reasonable to think they could have made either of these 2 deals involving Boeser:

1. FLA - was looking to upgrade at wing, willing to trade a 1st, and the expected cost for Boeser as a rental is probably that + a decent prospect, so let's say:

Boeser (50% ret.) <--> FLA 2027 1st (top 10 protected) + Sawychyn

This would be an ok deal, adds a right shot C prospect doing well, plus flippable draft capital. Hard to say that FLA would have gone for it. Not sure it would have been worth it (see below on extending Boeser instead)

2. CAR - this is tricky, since it's known that they had a deal for Rakell involving a 1st fall through because of the delay in confirming the Rantanen deal. Rakell has term, so they may just have preferred him over Boeser, but let's speculate that they could have acquired Boeser right at the last minute, for: DAL 2026 1st (top 10 protected) + Artamonov (was rumoured VAN was interested, seems like a solid developing prospect but would have to wait for him to come over, likely 1-2 more seasons)

Again, seems ok, may not have even been possible, not an ideal return at all.

In both cases, it's not a deal that really seems worth it given everything, looking long term. I assume no other teams were in on him -->LAK and CBJ would not have paid this price when they are not true contenders and could not get him with an extension. MIN went after Nyqvist for a 2nd rather than paying this price and almost certainly being able to extend Boeser, suggests they are not overly interested in him. No other team, based on what they did, seems like a deal would have been there.

Now, as for extending Boeser, this should be possible, we know he likes being in VAN, and that being the subject of trade rumours bothered him a lot. I'd say it's highly likely he would compromise on AAV, and maybe even term a little bit in order to get some basic trade protection, and that should be appealing, I mean, you extend him so you can keep him, and have him as a 1RW if the team is good, and a 2RW if the team is great, over the next 4-5 years at least.

What would you all say to this extension: 55M x 7 years (7.86M AAV) with a 16-team NTC for the first 5 seasons

Is that good enough for VAN? Good enough for Boeser?

Sorry for the rambling, there is just a lot to discuss / analyze here... :D
 
I really think we have to let the year play out before a final analysis can be made on the TDL.

If we look at the Lindholm deal last year, the value rollercoaster wasn't fully understood until months later:
-At first it was considered expensive. It cost them Kuzmenko, Brzustewicz, a 1st (Gridin) and a 4th.
-Then Lindholm actually was a key player in the playoffs. He was their best defensive forward and contributed to the playoff run which was incredible even though it was only two rounds. The trade was viewed more favourably.
-then he didn't resign, even after Miller lobbied for him, and everybody screamed about what a waste it was.
-Now Kuzmenko can't find a home and Boston is regretting the day they signed Lindholm.
-of course Vancouver signed DeBrusk because they had the cap space. I tell you now that I would do that swap again, Lindholm to Boston, DeBrusk to Vancouver.

What is unknown is whether or not they would have gone on that playoff run without Linholm. It is less likely but the answer isn't an absolute no. So, a year later the trade can arguably be destilled to Gridin and Brzustewicz (Calgary's 2nd and 4th ranked prospects respecitively) for DeBrusk plus two rounds of playoffs (excitement for the fans and revenue for the owners).

I apreciate the various moving parts make this analysis a little weak. It's based on a bunch of loose probablities in my head. But, overall, this deal looks a lot better now than the day it was done IMO. It would still be nice to have Gridin and Brz in the system.

Point is that any deadline deal, or absence of a deal, can only be judged on the impact the deal has over time. Boeser and Suter could contribute to getting into the playoffs and some success in the playoffs. Boeser could resign a team friendly deal. They could trade his rights before July 1st. They could use the cap space to sign a UFA. Thing is, we know none of this right now. We will know in 6 months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sensodyne17
The Athletic gave the Canucks the worst grade in the league for its deadline actions.

So no, people aren't crazy for thinking this was a Benning level f***up.
Are they basing their analysis on what the Canucks were offered for Boeser? Clearly the team decided it was better to keep Boeser than trade him for the return that was presented.
 
I question those who think this is worse than 2016 if they're thinking with their emotions or their brains on making that call.

One team is pushing for a playoff spot with a mid 20s Norris/Hart caliber dman and did what almost every team in that spot has historically done - very little. You can be mad they didn't buck the trend of teams in this spot, but calling it the worst deadline performance in franchise history (which was most definitely 2016), is a major stretch.

The 2016 team was a bottom feeder, with its franchise players at age 34, and somehow couldn't sell Hamhuis/Burrows/Hansen for anything because they "ran out of time." One walked for nothing, and the others were dealt for way less than they would've gotten the year before.

2016 was like if the Kraken chose to hold onto Gourde and Bjorkstrand, or the Bruins/Islanders didn't deal Coyle/Carlo/Nelson because they didn't realize they should sell until deadline day. That disaster-class being followed up by the Juolevi pick is one of the worst stretches of decision making in franchise history.

This is way more like 07/08 where they did very little after a very poor off-season where they didn't address the team's core needs, which ended up exascerbated by injuries. Even then, this management team has still been very active throughout the year, it just wasn't on deadline day.
 
On canucks talk Drance framed it an interesting way. Hockey players are not like fans in that they see things very binary.

It's either "this is our year, we're going for it, all in!" Or "we're rebuilding."

There's no middle ground. He tied the point around to Hughes and the season he's had and the grinding he's done to get back in the lineup. The difficulties the team has done through this year etc the position the team is in currently they weren't going to burn it all down.

The team is in the mushy middle albeit somewhat near the top so they were always going to lean towards going for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: God and Vector
Are they basing their analysis on what the Canucks were offered for Boeser? Clearly the team decided it was better to keep Boeser than trade him for the return that was presented.

It was based on the way they assessed the market leading into the deadline and their messaging afterwards.
 

Ad

Ad