2017/2018 Management Discussion | NEW MOD WARNING IN OP AS OF 5/20/18

[me2]

I can't believe I'm taking the troll bait here, but here goes :

When you're trading a draft pick (especially a mid-round pick), what happens with that pick afterwards is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the pick busts or is a HHOFer. What you traded was the intrinsic value of the pick, and that's what the trade is judged by.

Remember that time Benning tried to get Lucic in 2015. The Canucks went on to 3 consecutive bottom 3 finishes and Benning would have traded Boeser+ for Lucic to kill time on those tank teams.

Jimbob knows hockey...

 

[F A N]

this is a bad analogy like all baseball analogies. four pathetic grinders are not equal to one good player

What does this have to do with the baseball analogy I used?

 

[Verviticus]

there are four bases in baseball, last i checked. i dont watch it very often.

 

[Verviticus]

wait, did you actually ask that question? like you were legitimately confused as to how an analogy about base hits was related to the f***ing number 4?

 

[Intangibos]

Imagine if we drafted 1st in 88 and got Modano instead of Linden

 

[sting101]

I'd add the next paragraph to the relevant bit as well:



Building stability around the right players and getting guys to buy in is perhaps the hardest to recognize and most under appreciated mark of a good GM. This is made even more painfully obvious seeing how Gillis was treated here. And even more painful is how bad Linden and Benning are in this specific aspect.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Samzilla]

Decent article.

Given the message from management and their brutal performance in so many facets of running a hockey team, there truly should be way more heat on ownership and management than there has been up until now.

Are people being too critical of the Canucks, or not critical enough? - Sportsnet.ca

The Lindenning twitter account is linked to in that article. Classic.

 

[ChefBoiRD]

I can't believe I'm taking the troll bait here, but here goes :

When you're trading a draft pick (especially a mid-round pick), what happens with that pick afterwards is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the pick busts or is a HHOFer. What you traded was the intrinsic value of the pick, and that's what the trade is judged by.

If someone made the idiotic argument that the Ballard trade was a win for Gillis because the player they took with the #1 pick busted, and Grabner and Bernier were both waiver bait months later ... it would be pretty embarrassing. But hey! I like the asset management of Gillis way better! An NHL defender for a bust and two waiver-wire guys? Amazing! I prefer our outcome to Florida's!

Like, can you see how absolutely moronic an argument like this is? And if you're going to keep bringing crap like this here, people are just going to keep laughing at you.

That trade was a mid-rounder for a guy who came up huge in 2011 when Malhotra lost an eye, and then gave two more years of solid depth service to the team. That's a great trade you do again in a heartbeat. To be arguing otherwise makes you look like a joke.

__________

Also, you're still on with the 'President's Trophy season where we lost to the eventual Cup winner in the playoffs is an embarrassing season' thing (or 'most embarrassing in club history', as you originally stated). How screwed up does your perception of reality have to be to consider that embarrassing while cheering on the Dear Leader who has made us the worst team in the NHL over a 3-year period while telling us he was building a playoff team?

Like

 

[CanaFan]

Like

Love the new schtik way better than the old one. Keep it up.

Canafan Like!

 

[ChefBoiRD]

Love the new schtik way better than the old one. Keep it up.

Canafan Like!

Schtick? I applaud MS passionate response and you call it a schtick? Whatsamatta for you?

 

[CanaFan]

Schtick? I applaud MS passionate response and you call it a schtick? Whatsamatta for you?

Dislike

 

[ChefBoiRD]

Dislike

Like

 

[MikeK]

I read it as well. I thought it was a solid read. I was happy to finally click a Canucks related article on SPNet. I refuse to hit IMacs garbage anymore so it had been awhile.

 

[me2]

If Benning had succeeded in his plans to get Lucic and Subban. No Boeser, no Joulevi, no Pettersson, even more futures traded away. Even more cap problems. More desperate moves to prop that mess up be because he would not want to fail and rebuild and selling that much futures, he would sell even more. Subban is fantastic DD but he would not be enough and he would just help the team to just help the team to draft 6-10 spot instead 1-5. How does anyone think Benning knows what he is doing?

 

[me2]

Schtick? I applaud MS passionate response and you call it a schtick? Whatsamatta for you?

You think Boeser+ for Lucic is a good idea. Good times.

 

[Hit the post]

You think Boeser+ for Lucic is a good idea. Good times.

The best idea since Mini-Ravioli.

 

[RandV]

Can you elaborate?

I'm talking about building a large consistent player core, where you have long term stability and the majority of your players are willing to 'buy in' taking good long term contracts and often leaving money on the table.

Nearly every team is going to present a different situation, but lets look at Winnipeg here. From the last Atlanta Thrashers team 7 years ago they still have Wheeler, Little, Byfuglien, Enstrom, who they convinced to sign good long term deals in Winnipeg, Also Ben Chariot who was a prospect at the time. There's also a good handful of secondary players that stuck around most of the way until they got pushed out as fringe players: A.Burmistrov, C.Thorburn, J.Slater, M.Stuart, P.Postma, O.Pavelec. And a couple more higher end players that spent at least 4 more seasons in Winnipeg but never really bought in and were moved for good value: Kane, Bogosian, and Ladd. Additionally, I just did a quick check but of the players drafted by Winnipeg since they started in 2011 that have NHL games there are only two insignificant players in a different organization (Scott Kosmachuk and Jason Kasdorf).

That's an insane amount of stability, which goes back to the Chariot quote:

"It's important. Being together. Being comfortable with the guys in the room. Getting chemistry. Playing with the same guys year after year, it's important,"

That's not something that's apparent over an off season of moves, but rather is something that's built up over time. And compare that to the Canucks, where we're probably turning over 7-8 guys a season both major and minor and outside of Tanev (a Gilman signing) and Horvat required a big payday to come play here.

 

[2011 still hurts]

Man am I envious of Toronto; young team that produces a fun, exciting brand of hockey, likeable core of players, great GM/President combo, a HOF coach and a development team with a great understanding of todays game along with an AGM that's being groomed extremely well.

And we're stuck with all these shitty veterans and Lindenning

f***

 

[y2kcanucks]

Remember the time Benning said this is the best team he’s had here? Remember the time Linden said we are headed in the right direction? Yeah...this team needs to go .500 down the stretch just to match the 69 points they put up last year.

 

[RandV]

As we just played the Sharks it's interesting to contrast us vs them as the 2014 season ended. In terms of core roster players and prospects who would make it, it looks like...

Sharks
F: Thornton (34), Marleau (33), Pavelski (29), Couture (24), Wingels (25), Nieto (20)
D: Burns (28), Vlasic (26), Braun (26), Demers (25)
G: Niemi (30), Stalock (26)
P: Hertl, Tierney, Mueller

vs

Canucks
F: Henrik (32), Daniel(32), Kesler (29), Burrows (32), Hansen(27), Kassian (22)
D: Hamhuis (30), Garrison (28), Edler (27), Tanev (23)
G: Lack (25), Markstrom (23)
P: Horvat, Hutton, Gaunce

Burns is obviously the biggest difference, balanced out a bit by not having a legitimate goalie. But overall on both sides it's a very thin aging roster with few prospects in the system who would make the jump. From the 2014 draft on, the only prospects San Jose drafted that have made the jump are Meier, Labanc, and Goldobin. So after missing the playoffs in 2014-15 they've largely stayed in the picture based on pro-roster adjustments.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

As we just played the Sharks it's interesting to contrast us vs them as the 2014 season ended. In terms of core roster players and prospects who would make it, it looks like...

Sharks
F: Thornton (34), Marleau (33), Pavelski (29), Couture (24), Wingels (25), Nieto (20)
D: Burns (28), Vlasic (26), Braun (26), Demers (25)
G: Niemi (30), Stalock (26)
P: Hertl, Tierney, Mueller

vs

Canucks
F: Henrik (32), Daniel(32), Kesler (29), Burrows (32), Hansen(27), Kassian (22)
D: Hamhuis (30), Garrison (28), Edler (27), Tanev (23)
G: Lack (25), Markstrom (23)
P: Horvat, Hutton, Gaunce

Burns is obviously the biggest difference, balanced out a bit by not having a legitimate goalie. But overall on both sides it's a very thin aging roster with few prospects in the system who would make the jump. From the 2014 draft on, the only prospects San Jose drafted that have made the jump are Meier, Labanc, and Goldobin. So after missing the playoffs in 2014-15 they've largely stayed in the picture based on pro-roster adjustments.

Doug Wilson is one of the shrewdest GM's in the league..He's always kept the team competitive..From 2008-12 they drafted Hertl,Tierney,Nieto,Wingels,Demers,Coyle..all solid NHL players.

In contrast we drafted one solid NHL player,and four fringe players..that doesn't help....Also,after Kesler left the drop off was pretty big.

 

[elitepete]

Here's a simple question that just popped into my head for Trevor. Sorry if it's been asked before.

He has said before that the Vancouver market wouldn't allow for a rebuild. That he couldn't just walk into the room with the Sedins and tear it down.

At this point, how is Vancouver accepting 4 years of bottom 3 hockey? How are the wins/losses they have accumulated any different than a rebuilding team? They aren't - the only difference is that rebuilding teams acquire a horrible record like that trading away veterans for picks - not trading away picks for veterans before the season.

Simply put. He said Vancouver couldn't handle a rebuild - as in the fans couldn't/wouldn't support losing hockey.

But they truly have given the fans the most negative parts of a rebuild - lacking a lot of the positivity/fun (getting to see young players actually play, accumulating a lot of draft picks, watching the team spend those draft picks on prospects not old injured veterans) that comes with a true rebuild (further example of this is their prime possession - the guy who literally got Benning an extension - was a 23rd overall pick.

What gives? Trevor and Jim have absolutely delivered the hockey fans of this city some of the least competitive hockey played by the Canucks (statistically) and they claimed from the beginning they absolutely could not do that. The city wouldn't stand for it.

So why have they given it to us and are still holding their heads high?

This is the single greatest fact that will lead to these pathetic clowns getting fired.

 

[northwestern comfort]

This is the single greatest fact that will lead to these pathetic clowns getting fired.

Except it hasn’t and won’t. This idea has been brought up before in the media, and management’s answer is that they’re going to do it “the right way”. The “right way” is not doing the blow it up, tank, draft pick strategy. Instead of working with the system because it’s flawed, they work against it because of pride. Saw some of it in Benning’s refusal to be low-balled during the Hamhuis debacle. Or maybe it’s because they’re both former players. I wouldn’t be surprised if that effected them in some part.

Even on these boards, there is a distaste for purposeful tanking, so it’s not surprising that Lindenning would refuse to do it even with their jobs on the line. Either get rid of the lottery and prevent multiple first overall picks, or have the winningest eliminated team.

The winningest eliminated team draft system would make the trade deadline super interesting because there wouldn’t be clear cut buyers vs sellers.

 

[Verviticus]

tanking is good and the innate revulsion everyone has to it is stupid and bad

 

[Hit the post]

Doug Wilson is one of the shrewdest GM's in the league..

He's got the same number of Cup wins as Gilligan. You can argue he didn't go "all in" hard enough to win it when a guys like Marleau & Thornton were at their peak (yes they're competitive - but I don't see that group winning the Cup anytime soon).