2018 Management Discussion

[Verviticus]

depends if the next gm is competent, i guess

 

[Verviticus]

You seemed obsessed with Guddys rugged good looks..not that there's anything wrong with that.

well... hes gotta do something right. i guess looking good is a skill

 

[Bleach Clean]

Who the **** cares they spent over the cap..What does it matter now?..Is it affecting anything now?..You're completely obsessed with something in the past that has no ramifications.

The fact that you think it has no ramifications conveys why people disagree with you.

Who were the better players (4th line players that can play,not scrubs) available in this years UFA..?

Who cares? 4th liners can be dissected and compared forever. The key question: Why chase 4th liners?

 

[Motte and Bailey]

This is incorrect because if rebuilding the roster "took precedence 80-90% of the time" then there would be more than the standard allotment of picks year to year. We haven't seen that, so it does not follow.

Further, there's no way to quantify the options forgone by refusing to weaponize cap space. So I'm unclear as to how you are 10-20% of their resources are building toward culture. How much of this roster is actually dead-weight veterans again?

Your balance markers are off.

You are also assuming that the fans that are confused don't also understand what they are doing, and are just not happy about it. Could that be a possiblity?

Last, how can you possibly classify culture as being instrumental to future potential cup wins when you have no way of discerning it's impact on prospects?

There are just too many holes in the logic of your post to be taken seriously. I would welcome a clarification.

Of course this is a valid question.

The way I define the 10% to 20% figure is min maxing draft picks in cap space because honestly how are you going to get extra draft picks?

Trading your existing assets to get them is the only way ( cap Space being asset )

So what is happening is they are not spending significant assets on players that wouldn’t fit in the long-term plan because of age for the most part.

This means when you make trades you make trades for young players or at least young enough to see through the rebuild such as big Erik.

It means you do not trade away high draft picks for immediate help A.k.a. older players who you know will be retired long before you can realistically contend.

Weaponizing cap space to maximize draft picks is actually not that significant when you calculate how likely it is for a draft pick to turn in to a good player.

Every franchise has whiffed on a top five pick your top 10 pick look at Sam Bennett look at Cam Barker look at Brett Connolly the list goes on and on.

If you do the math and you assume successful drafting you don’t need any more than the standard seven allotted picks per year in fact anymore than that would create and in balance in your roster with too many players up for re-signing deals at the same time which can cripple a team.

I agree that having more pics will move the needle forward in terms of rebuilding and restocking talent of course it’s trivially true idea. The question is would you rather move the needle forward that little bit at the expense of building a culture I say no and I’m glad that the professionals doing the job agree with me.

 

[Bleach Clean]

depends if the next gm is competent, i guess

Big question mark, I know. But even if the next one is also incompetent, that's just more high picks.

Basically, VAN is in a state now where the GM is doing everything he can to stymie progress. Loading the team up with vets. Having a less than standard pick allotment. Keeping prospects off the main squad. Bad Pro Scouting. Even worse contracts. etc... The opposite approach of this is where the team can potentially make the greatest gains. So he's doing his best to slow progress.

The only way out is if the prospect push reaches a critical mass. That will take some time given management tendencies. So Benning and/or the New GM just keep on collecting high picks until that happens.

This is different from other teams where they drop down for 3-4 years and then start to build back up. TOR did this after picking Nylander in 2014, Marner in 2015 and then finally Matthews in 2016. Then, they were on an ascent, picking 17th overall in 2017. They got their key piece and then started to build. To contrast, the Canucks have been mired in NHL purgatory for 4 of their last 5 years, and it looks like another bad year is on the horizon. 6 years for VAN, compared to 3 years for TOR.

Some will point to Matthews as the difference, but a lot of it has to do with how those respective teams were managed over that same span of time. If Pettersson is a Matthews level talent, then a similar base exists. Only, the GM here has no ability to build the team up like the brain trust over there has, so Pettersson is unlikely to excel in the same way. In the end, the environment simply isn't there to allow Pettersson to flourish.

 

[BeautBabeC]

Without adding vets like this whose gonna teach the kids to use the training bikes. The off ice benefits of these guys are enormous if you cant see that seek help

 

[y2kcanucks]

Who the **** cares they spent over the cap..What does it matter now?..Is it affecting anything now?..You're completely obsessed with something in the past that has no ramifications.

Who were the better players (4th line players that can play,not scrubs) available in this years UFA..?...How do you know that they would even come to a bottom 5 team?

A draft deficit of one 4th round pick...God forbid

In 2014 the Lightning already had young talents Steve Stamkos,Victor Hedman,Kucherov,Drouin.....Big difference from what we had..an old core and no prospect pool...Thats a nice list from Tampa,and they've drafted well,but I think its stretch to say that group will get anywhere near eclipsing their current core.

Because you seem more than willing to ignore those facts and instead just make a blanket statement that they were rebuilding. If you're going to claim they were rebuilding then I'm going to analyze the evidence, and the evidence does not support your claim. They have not been rebuilding, and I refuted your claim quite easily. If the best you can come up with now is "who the f*** cares" then obviously your argument isn't as strong as you wish it were.

Patrick Maroon and Antoine Vermette remain unsigned. Both are better than who the Canucks overpaid for. Riley Nash put up 41 points and signed for less than we signed Jay Beagle for. Kyle Brodziak signed for 3 times less than Beagle. Matt Hendricks basically matched Roussel's offensive output and signed for 1 year $700k.

There are players who would come to play for a bottom 5 team because some are just looking for jobs. We see it every year. A little bit of patience and we would have had an opportunity to bring some players in cheap.

And on that subject, who's fault is it that we're a bottom 5 team? Benning has been here for 4 seasons. There is only 1 remaining contract that he did not sign. I'd say it's on him that this team is so bad. And that's because of all the poor contracts he has signed in the past (and clearly continues to do today).

I'm glad you finally admit to the draft pick deficit. Now look at teams that are actually rebuilding. Detroit in the last 2 drafts has a draft pick surplus of 7 (that's a full draft's worth of picks...a surplus of 7 among the first 4 rounds). Montreal has had a draft pick surplus of 4 (a surplus of 5 among the first 4 rounds). The New York Rangers have had a draft pick surplus of 3 (a surplus of 2 among the first 4 rounds). These teams are rebuilding and stockpiling draft picks, and stockpiling high draft picks. Benning is not rebuilding. He has a draft pick deficit, and did not bother to acquire any draft picks. Even at the trade deadline he stated he wanted to do a hockey trade, so based on his own word he wasn't looking for draft picks.

Yes, Tampa had a good young core in 2014. But they also have a great young core behind their current core. Their drafting has been excellent. What's the Canucks excuse? Their prospects are just as good, if not better than what Benning has put together, and they haven't had the luxury of 4 picks in the top 7. Many of those prospects Benning would have had a chance at if he were stockpiling picks and weren't trading picks away for marginal players or other team's draft busts.

So again, based on the evidence, there is no rebuild. There has never been a rebuild. The Canucks are not in a rebuild. They are merely a bad hockey team that has collected some youth because that's how the NHL draft works, but there has never been an actual effort to rebuild through the draft.

 

[MS]

You're asking me why his production fell off (and he had a consistent point total the previous 3 years)....really,you can only point the finger at the coach..We will see this season if he is a deteriorating asset or not,at 28 years of age..I dont see it.

Well, no. I wasn't asking that at all. I was asking if you had $12 million worth of confidence that this player would be an offensive contributor going forward.

And you can only point the finger at the coach? Seriously?

A defensive player plays like crap for a HHOF coach notorious for loving defensive players and the only possibility is the coach? Like, it isn't a possibility that he's another of this sort of choppy-skating energy player who are notorious for burning out by age 30?

Have you noticed any of @Melvin 's posts in the past few days showing how almost all of this type of player are finished by age 30?

So you're basing his effectiveness on his last 43 games against what he had done the previous 3 years under a different coach?

I'm looking at what he did most recently. Does it necessarily mean he's finished? No, it doesn't. Does it mean giving him a massive 4-year commitment is complrteky idiotic? Absolutely.

Obviously,Benning is trying to incorporate grittiness into the Canucks lineup.....I don't think Hansen is the player he envisions in that role.

Hansen isn't gritty? Seriously?

But again, that wasn't the question I was asking.

If you're so confident that Roussel is a great signing after the season he just had, would you be comfortable signing Hansen - a better player previously who had an identical season last year - to a substantial UFA contract?

 

[I in the Eye]

Of course this is a valid question.

The way I define the 10% to 20% figure is min maxing draft picks in cap space because honestly how are you going to get extra draft picks?

Trading your existing assets to get them is the only way ( cap Space being asset )

So what is happening is they are not spending significant assets on players that wouldn’t fit in the long-term plan because of age for the most part.

This means when you make trades you make trades for young players or at least young enough to see through the rebuild such as big Erik.

It means you do not trade away high draft picks for immediate help A.k.a. older players who you know will be retired long before you can realistically contend.

Weaponizing cap space to maximize draft picks is actually not that significant when you calculate how likely it is for a draft pick to turn in to a good player.

Every franchise has whiffed on a top five pick your top 10 pick look at Sam Bennett look at Cam Barker look at Brett Connolly the list goes on and on.

If you do the math and you assume successful drafting you don’t need any more than the standard seven allotted picks per year in fact anymore than that would create and in balance in your roster with too many players up for re-signing deals at the same time which can cripple a team.

I agree that having more pics will move the needle forward in terms of rebuilding and restocking talent of course it’s trivially true idea. The question is would you rather move the needle forward that little bit at the expense of building a culture I say no and I’m glad that the professionals doing the job agree with me.

You want to start building a winning culture? Staple Gaunce on the roster and show that if you do everything asked of you, work hard, and earn a roster spot, then there is a place for you on the team, and we'll take care of you... same with Biega. We've invested in you, just hold up your end of the bargain and do what we say, and we've got your back.

Spending $24 mil on Beagle and Rousell sends the wrong winning culture message... especially if the likes of gaunce and biega don't make it onto the roster as a result.

Benning doesn't know what he's doing. He's trying to manufacture and purchase culture instead of nurturing and growing it.

Gift roster spots and praise and reward shitty play... and you're not creating a winning culture - spending $24 mil doesn't fix what Benning broke.

 

[Field of Dreams]

My view is the recent signings have negative long term consequences while carrying minimal short term benefit. Signing reclamation projects and hoping they can be flipped at the deadline is a great way to convert cap space into draft picks - even if they are not high picks, it's a game of numbers. The recent signings do not fit within this category of signings nor should they reasonably be expected to make the team much better than before. Instead of having cap space to be used in constructive ways, it is being used in signing guys who can fill out the bottom six until cap space will be needed for the core players first contracts.

If I were Benning, I would be calling up Pittsburgh and trying to see what they'll pay for a Hagelin dump, or seeing how desperate Melnyk is to jettison Bobby Ryan. Instead, Benning signed a bad contracts such as Ericksson or beagle without being rewarded adequately in futures.

I blame Linden even more so than Benning. Despite Bennings clear inability to fulfill the duties of a general manager outside the draft table, the main issue is the Canucks have been unable to pick an organizational direction and stick with it. The president needs to dictate a long term plan, and hire personnel able to execute his vision. Linden has neither a coherent vision of where the organisation is or needs to go, and has failed to hire competent personnel.

 

[MS]

You want to start building a winning culture? Staple Gaunce on the roster and show that if you do everything asked of you, work hard, and earn a roster spot, then there is a place for you on the team, and we'll take care of you... same with Biega. We've invested in you, just hold up your end of the bargain and do what we say, and we've got your back.

Spending $24 mil on Beagle and Rousell sends the wrong winning culture message... especially if the likes of gaunce and biega don't make it onto the roster as a result.

Benning doesn't know what he's doing. He's trying to manufacture and purchase culture instead of nurturing and growing it.

Gift roster spots and praise and reward ****ty play... and you're not creating a winning culture - spending $24 mil doesn't fix what Benning broke.

This can't be stated enough.

This losing team with the losingest record in the NHL over the past 3 years has the losingest culture imaginable.

A culture where crap veterans are overpaid and never scratched no matter how poorly they perform.

A culture where guys who actually do achieve beyond expectations are typecast and marginalized if they don't have 'pedigree'.

A culture where young players have little chance for opportunity because they've been blocked off by the loser old players management has stocked the roster with.

This is a loser team, filled with loser players, run by the biggest losers in management you could ever dream of.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

You want to start building a winning culture? Staple Gaunce on the roster and show that if you do everything asked of you, work hard, and earn a roster spot, then there is a place for you on the team, and we'll take care of you... same with Biega. We've invested in you, just hold up your end of the bargain and do what we say, and we've got your back.

Spending $24 mil on Beagle and Rousell sends the wrong winning culture message... especially if the likes of gaunce and biega don't make it onto the roster as a result.

Benning doesn't know what he's doing. He's trying to manufacture and purchase culture instead of nurturing and growing it.

Gift roster spots and praise and reward ****ty play... and you're not creating a winning culture - spending $24 mil doesn't fix what Benning broke.

Beagle and Roussell weren't gifted anything. Neither of them were drafted, they fought their way in the NHL just like Alex Burrows did. 2 functional Burrows type players are much more conducive to building the right culture than Brendan Gaunce who is too slow to be a bottom 6 forward on this team. And I happen to like Gaunce and Biega but they don't bring the same level of winningness to the roster that a guy like Beagle who has won a championship at the ECHL, AHL, and NHL level.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

It's not nonsense. You talk about their front loaded contracts like they create flexibility for the Canucks but it actually does the opposite. Those front loaded and bonus heavy deals are precisely why they're basically pointless to buy out. If you figure on at least $800K to replace these guys' roster spot after a buyout, the team is basically spending $2.5M in buyout and salary to replace them and then have to carry a buyout cap hit through to 2023 or 2024, 5-6 years from now.

It's simply not a viable option and if management actually went into these contracts with the thought that they could just buy their way out of these bad contracts then they're colossally stupid, almost beyond belief. The idea that you'd trade cap space from the future to prop up the present terrible team is completely asinine. If they absolutely had to have these particular guys at any cost it would've been much smarter to just pay them $4-4.5M a year on 2 year deals.

Thats bizarre,..its at complete odds with what Doug Mclean (sports net 650) was saying earlier...I will have to look into buyout procedures.

Without question,the contracts are an overpayment of dollars and term..The more likely to be bought out would be Beagles contract,if it ever comes down to that.

 

[Verviticus]

neither of them are going to be bought out because there is no practical reason to do so

doug maclean is a complete f***ing moron. an idiot of the highest calibre

 

[MS]

neither of them are going to be bought out because there is no practical reason to do so

doug maclean is a complete ****ing moron. an idiot of the highest calibre

If you'd asked me in 2010, I'd have said it was fundamentally impossible that a stupider person than Doug MacLean would ever be an NHL GM.

Then Jim Benning happened.

 

[geebaan]

If you'd asked me in 2010, I'd have said it was fundamentally impossible that a stupider person than Doug MacLean would ever be an NHL GM.

Then Jim Benning happened.

The funniest thing ever in that comparison, is like Benning, Maclean actually didn't have a bad draft record, and hit on some high and middle picks.

However, he was so f***ing incapable at the rest of his job, the Blue Jackets sucked in perpetuity

Wow that sounds familiar.

 

[MS]

The funniest thing ever in that comparison, is like Benning, Maclean actually didn't have a bad draft record, and hit on some high and middle picks.

However, he was so ****ing incapable at the rest of his job, the Blue Jackets sucked in perpetuity

Wow that sounds familiar.

... because, like here, other people we're doing all the legwork on their drafting.

 

[xtra]

Thats bizarre,..its at complete odds with what Doug Mclean (sports net 650) was saying earlier...I will have to look into buyout procedures.

Without question,the contracts are an overpayment of dollars and term..The more likely to be bought out would be Beagles contract,if it ever comes down to that.

Hey look another example that your appeal to authority arguments are dumb. Just cause they have the job there doesn’t mean that they know what they are doing.

 

[geebaan]

... because, like here, other people we're doing all the legwork on their drafting.

I just think its funny that a legitimate argument I see here all the time is "well he's good at drafting so non of the other stuff matters"

Like uh, you know we can look in a history book right?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Hey look another example that your appeal to authority arguments are dumb. Just cause they have the job there doesn’t mean that they know what they are doing.

Not really..Maclean has no bias one way or the other on this matter...You can call it an' appeal to authority' or whatever you want..I'll take his opinion any day over a bitter poster on this board (that does not include 'opendoor' who had valid points).

 

[Pavel96]

You seemed obsessed with Guddys rugged good looks..not that there's anything wrong with that.

Lol just brutal. If this the best you can do, why even bother? At least you are making stuff up as usual -me commenting on his greatest asset to the team [his movember mustache] and you twisting that into homophobic comedy - yay.

 

[Pavel96]

Any time you have money that needs to be spent, the progressive, forward thinking organization will look for a certain comfort level with the payee.

I am sure they are getting comfort out of the fact they didn't have to trade him for pennies on the dollar for what they paid for him.

 

[Peter10]

Who the **** cares they spent over the cap..What does it matter now?..Is it affecting anything now?..You're completely obsessed with something in the past that has no ramifications.

Oh glad that you asked. It indeed is affecting the now. As the Canucks were operating at the salary cap last year, Brock Boesers bonus is carried over to this year which means they have $852,847 less to spend this season. Granted it is not much and considered the dumb UFA moves every cap dollar less is a blessing in disguise with these buffons at work, their incompetence from last year still had an impact in this years cap.

 

[Jack Burton]

OK full stop!

Please just go enjoy the rest of you summer and take this up in October

Bottom line is that if this regime is honest and the best players EARN their spots....we really shouldn't be complaining.

 

[RobertKron]

Dude said “winningness.”