Speculation: Armchair Canucks GM: What is your core competitive strategy

What best describes the strategic stance you would take with the Canucks at this point?


  • Total voters
    79
  • Poll closed .

ginner classic

Dammit Jim!
Mar 4, 2002
10,634
934
Douglas Park
If you are evaluating how to fix this team, first you have to start with a basic strategy, and then attempt to execute it. So in your opinion, where is this team at? What is the best generic strategy? Full disclosure, I think one of the Canucks' biggest problems is obviously that they either did not have a strategy, or did not stick with it. Their incompetence in execution (trades, contracts, player development etc.) is really another issue.

EDIT: As a constraint - you are stuck with our current owners, and would need to be able to sell this.

So which of these do you think is right for the current team? Feel free to note your second choice in your reply.

Visionary - Realistically you believe it will be many years before the team will be a contender. This means a deep rebuild scenario - the thing we have not done yet. You are willing to trade any current non-core assets for picks and young prospects and will weaponize cap space. You sell for picks now and at the deadline. You are unwilling to add UFAs on deals longer than 1 year. Any pending UFAs must be sold at the next deadline, including those signed this summer.

Patient - Stay the course on the young core, draft and develop and trade pending UFA's at the deadlines. Avoid long term deals for older UFAs like the plague. Sign 1 year UFAs that can help the team this year and possibly be trade chips (Vanek style). Look for 1 or 2 opportunities to weaponize cap space. Possibly trade younger players that don't look to be part of the solution (Hutton/Virtanen).

Pragmatic - The core is probably not ready to compete but could surprise from year to year. The team should still be building up future assets but look for opportunistic ways to improve in both the short and long term. Examples may be weaponizing cap space for an asset with one year left. Trading away any RFAs for picks that don't appear part of the solution. Looking for opportunities to trade pending UFAs that are not critical to winning this season. Try to find prospects off waivers, or look to opportunistically trade late picks for change of scenery prospects. Willing to sign only elite or value UFAs, nothing in the middle. You intend to keep all the younger players we have now (Hutton/Virtanen) unless they help you get another equivalent asset.

Competitive - The heavy lifting is done. You start with the objective of making the playoffs. You are willing to trade 2nd or 3rd rounders to fill out the lineup. You are willing to add UFAs that fill gaps, even if they are longer term deals. You know that things won't always work out and so you are unwilling to trade away 2nd tier prospects or the 2020 1st. The team still has to keep a pipeline of high quality youngsters even if you are OK being a net seller of picks and draft position. You are unwilling to weaponize cap space as you need to reserve that for players that can help the team win now.

Aggressive - You assume that the playoffs is now probable and with the right players the team can win a round or two. You plan to contend every year from here on out because the core is already in place and they just need a better supporting cast. You are willing to trade any non core chips like 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks in drafts 2020 and on. You Might even trade a number of the 2019 picks. Realistically outside of the core 4, the other prospects in the system are all up for discussion, including dealing Demko for something that can help now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Frankie Blueberries

Allergic to draft picks
Jan 27, 2016
9,099
10,546
A combination of visionary, patient, and pragmatic. Stockpile futures and stay the course. Deal aging vets as they get close to free agency or no longer fit with the team. Take on cap dumps for futures. Anything that will benefit the team in 2-3 years. By all means make deals that benefit the current state of the team, but that shouldn't be the main priority.
 

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
22,906
6,497
I am on the patient-pragmatic border at this point. There are very few teams that should be signing players outside the top-tier UFAs to expensive, long-term deals. Typically these are playoff teams that are looking to take the step into contention. You should also always be looking to acquire additional picks unless you're in that category of looking to move into contention. You should rotate out non-core veterans that are at, or below, replacement level (whether they are RFAs or pending UFAs is really immaterial). We have a lot of these.

It really all comes down to two, related things the organization needs to do right now. Improve talent evaluation, and yes, that includes rounds 2-7 of the draft. Improve the overall strategy around hockey operations, which shouldn't be particularly hard because there doesn't appear to be one in place. That includes everything from addressing the schedule, to understanding competition windows, to leveraging statistics to make Nino Niederreiter type trades, to better understanding the CBA and salary cap implications. It doesn't appear management does any of these things.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
Visionary, absolutely. I'm not willing to accept a flawed team trying to push for the playoffs just to make the first round. I want to build a championship team, and the group we have is nowhere close.

Going into next season I would probably go with a lineup like this at forward:

Goldobin-Pettersson-Boeser
Baertschi-Horvat-Leivo
Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen
Gaunce-MacEwen-Pearson

A couple injury concerns on the left wing, but move Pearson up the lineup as needed. My main focus would be clearing the mess that Benning has created when he wasted over $16M of cap space on Eriksson, Beagle, Spooner and Sutter. Dump those players for whatever you can get, and in the case of Eriksson send him to the minors and try to pressure him to retire.


Defense is another issue. I would not be willing to pay anywhere close to $4M for Ben Hutton, and thus would look to trade him this summer. I also would not be willing to go to 3 years on Edler's contract, so he would likely walk. My defense would likely look something like this:

1-year Veteran UFA - Stecher
Hughes - Tanev
Sautner - Schenn
Biega


Yes, it's ugly, it's bad, and it needs a huge revamp. That is part 2 of my plan:


At the draft, assuming Bowen Byram does not go 3rd overall, I would offer up a package to Colorado that includes the 10th overall pick, Ben Hutton, Olli Juolevi, and Jacob Markstrom for the 4th overall pick. That pick would be used to draft Bowen Byram, who I would most likely return to the Giants unless he wows at camp (might even give him a 9-game stint if he has a strong showing). The left side of the defense would be solidified with Hughes and Byram. The right side has Stecher and not much else below him. Jett Woo is a question mark, but the best we have left in the system, so more right side depth would be a priority going forward.

Now, you've noticed I have traded Jacob Markstrom. I would be going with Thatcher Demko and a veteran 1B type of back-up. Someone like Semyon Varlamov or Cam Talbot.

With the extra roster spots I'd be looking for another cheap 1-year center, and a cheap 1-year defenseman. Again, the key is that we are only signing veterans to 1-year contracts. This leaves the team with plenty of cap flexibility, adds a few picks for guys like Beagle and Sutter (I anticipate we could maybe get a 3rd out of the Islanders for Beagle since Trotz is apparently a huge backer of his), and focus on an actual rebuild. Thanks to Benning there isn't much left that we can trade for any worthwhile draft picks, but if we can weaponize our cap space and acquire another top prospect or top pick that would be ideal.

Edmonton, for example, would love to get out of that Lucic contract. If we can get Eriksson to retire I would certainly make a call to the Oilers and ask for their 8th overall pick to take on that Lucic contract.
 

ginner classic

Dammit Jim!
Mar 4, 2002
10,634
934
Douglas Park
To be honest, I feel like I could take any of these scenarios and drive better results than the Canucks' management team. As for where we should be give our current situation, I lean towards Patient. Pragmatic is my 2nd choice, Competitive 3rd and Visionary 4th.

Benning screwed our chance to be 'Visionary' (wasting at least a couple of years and setting back the rebuild time and quality) and the team is in a different place right now. I am not sure it would be a stable strategy at this point and would not be supported by ownership (a very real constraint).
 

Balls Mahoney

2015-2016 HF Premier League World Champion
Aug 14, 2008
20,402
1,922
Legend
I guess I would fall somewhere between pragmatic and visionary.

Pragmatic in this team could be a legit contender in two to three years with a competent management staff. We have a few decent players now and there's hope. However this team still needs a complete rebuild on defense and a plethora of moneypuck moves if it's ever going to get out of this cycle of malaise. I have very little faith that the Benning administration has the competence to pull four or five top NHL defensemen out of thin air. However, I suppose I am encouraged that this team is uptrending.

Visionary in this organization has systematic failure in it's inability to convert on draft picks and develop prospects into NHLers. Winning NHL teams have winning AHL clubs and manage to convert their lower picks into depth and productive players. This is something that stymies and has ultimately hurt the Canucks arguably through the team's entire history. I also think this team benefitted greatly in it's best of times over the last several years when it had an exceptional farm club in Manitoba. The Benning Administration's handling of Utica is one of the biggest indictments against it. This organization needs an overhaul from top to bottom with re-examinations of how and why it does every thing.
 

ginner classic

Dammit Jim!
Mar 4, 2002
10,634
934
Douglas Park
Visionary, absolutely. I'm not willing to accept a flawed team trying to push for the playoffs just to make the first round. I want to build a championship team, and the group we have is nowhere close.

Going into next season I would probably go with a lineup like this at forward:

Goldobin-Pettersson-Boeser
Baertschi-Horvat-Leivo
Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen
Gaunce-MacEwen-Pearson

A couple injury concerns on the left wing, but move Pearson up the lineup as needed. My main focus would be clearing the mess that Benning has created when he wasted over $16M of cap space on Eriksson, Beagle, Spooner and Sutter. Dump those players for whatever you can get, and in the case of Eriksson send him to the minors and try to pressure him to retire.


Defense is another issue. I would not be willing to pay anywhere close to $4M for Ben Hutton, and thus would look to trade him this summer. I also would not be willing to go to 3 years on Edler's contract, so he would likely walk. My defense would likely look something like this:

1-year Veteran UFA - Stecher
Hughes - Tanev
Sautner - Schenn
Biega


Yes, it's ugly, it's bad, and it needs a huge revamp. That is part 2 of my plan:


At the draft, assuming Bowen Byram does not go 3rd overall, I would offer up a package to Colorado that includes the 10th overall pick, Ben Hutton, Olli Juolevi, and Jacob Markstrom for the 4th overall pick. That pick would be used to draft Bowen Byram, who I would most likely return to the Giants unless he wows at camp (might even give him a 9-game stint if he has a strong showing). The left side of the defense would be solidified with Hughes and Byram. The right side has Stecher and not much else below him. Jett Woo is a question mark, but the best we have left in the system, so more right side depth would be a priority going forward.

Now, you've noticed I have traded Jacob Markstrom. I would be going with Thatcher Demko and a veteran 1B type of back-up. Someone like Semyon Varlamov or Cam Talbot.

With the extra roster spots I'd be looking for another cheap 1-year center, and a cheap 1-year defenseman. Again, the key is that we are only signing veterans to 1-year contracts. This leaves the team with plenty of cap flexibility, adds a few picks for guys like Beagle and Sutter (I anticipate we could maybe get a 3rd out of the Islanders for Beagle since Trotz is apparently a huge backer of his), and focus on an actual rebuild. Thanks to Benning there isn't much left that we can trade for any worthwhile draft picks, but if we can weaponize our cap space and acquire another top prospect or top pick that would be ideal.

Edmonton, for example, would love to get out of that Lucic contract. If we can get Eriksson to retire I would certainly make a call to the Oilers and ask for their 8th overall pick to take on that Lucic contract.

This is the whole point of the exercise. Pick the basic strategy and make a plan to execute it as well as possible. I think 4 of these options are defensible. But we have to have a basic understanding of where we are before we can go about making it happen. Love the analysis.
 

ginner classic

Dammit Jim!
Mar 4, 2002
10,634
934
Douglas Park
I should have pointed out, you are stuck with the Aquilinis as owners and would need to sell this vision. There is no point expecting to operate in a vacuum.
 

Pastor Of Muppetz

Registered User
Oct 1, 2017
26,010
15,871
Visionary, absolutely. I'm not willing to accept a flawed team trying to push for the playoffs just to make the first round. I want to build a championship team, and the group we have is nowhere close.

Going into next season I would probably go with a lineup like this at forward:

Goldobin-Pettersson-Boeser
Baertschi-Horvat-Leivo
Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen
Gaunce-MacEwen-Pearson

A couple injury concerns on the left wing, but move Pearson up the lineup as needed. My main focus would be clearing the mess that Benning has created when he wasted over $16M of cap space on Eriksson, Beagle, Spooner and Sutter. Dump those players for whatever you can get, and in the case of Eriksson send him to the minors and try to pressure him to retire.


Defense is another issue. I would not be willing to pay anywhere close to $4M for Ben Hutton, and thus would look to trade him this summer. I also would not be willing to go to 3 years on Edler's contract, so he would likely walk. My defense would likely look something like this:

1-year Veteran UFA - Stecher
Hughes - Tanev
Sautner - Schenn
Biega


Yes, it's ugly, it's bad, and it needs a huge revamp. That is part 2 of my plan:


At the draft, assuming Bowen Byram does not go 3rd overall, I would offer up a package to Colorado that includes the 10th overall pick, Ben Hutton, Olli Juolevi, and Jacob Markstrom for the 4th overall pick. That pick would be used to draft Bowen Byram, who I would most likely return to the Giants unless he wows at camp (might even give him a 9-game stint if he has a strong showing). The left side of the defense would be solidified with Hughes and Byram. The right side has Stecher and not much else below him. Jett Woo is a question mark, but the best we have left in the system, so more right side depth would be a priority going forward.

Now, you've noticed I have traded Jacob Markstrom. I would be going with Thatcher Demko and a veteran 1B type of back-up. Someone like Semyon Varlamov or Cam Talbot.

With the extra roster spots I'd be looking for another cheap 1-year center, and a cheap 1-year defenseman. Again, the key is that we are only signing veterans to 1-year contracts. This leaves the team with plenty of cap flexibility, adds a few picks for guys like Beagle and Sutter (I anticipate we could maybe get a 3rd out of the Islanders for Beagle since Trotz is apparently a huge backer of his), and focus on an actual rebuild. Thanks to Benning there isn't much left that we can trade for any worthwhile draft picks, but if we can weaponize our cap space and acquire another top prospect or top pick that would be ideal.

Edmonton, for example, would love to get out of that Lucic contract. If we can get Eriksson to retire I would certainly make a call to the Oilers and ask for their 8th overall pick to take on that Lucic contract.
You've obviously taken the time to type out your vision of the Canucks..so all views are appreciated....With your plan,I honestly believe that Bo Horvat would be on the line with his agent asking for a trade.
 

Balls Mahoney

2015-2016 HF Premier League World Champion
Aug 14, 2008
20,402
1,922
Legend
At this point, my strategy would be more about rebuilding behind the scenes in the immediate and then incorporating long-term building for the team.

I wouldn't get hired by Aquillini because I would demand a lot of sweeping changes and budget/resources up front.

Short-Term

- Hire advanced analytics scouting division
- Hire top sport psychologists and performance specialists to monitor the team
- Hire a Gilman-like numbers specialist to manage cap affairs, contracts and number haboos
- Make Utica winning the Calder Cup within three years a top emphasis within the organization with all the resources and personnel necessary to make that happen

Long-Term

- Sell off any player who won't be here or won't be productive within three years for futures as productive opportunities arise. No one leaves for free.
- Acquire as many draft picks as possible
- Shift from a good ol' boy scouting system to a more analytical scouting system
- Hire former Canucks to monitor and work with Canucks prospects before they enter the system (steal the Red Wings model)
- Make winning a Stanley Cup within five years a top emphasis
 
Last edited:

Motte and Bailey

Registered User
Jun 21, 2017
3,692
1,556
Between pragmatic and competitive.

We already have 3 young superstars - Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes. Add Markstrom to be mix and add another superstar that's likely to emerge in the next few years from our drafting or perhaps a possible free agent signing. We cannot realistically afford more stars this. So we're basically set here.

We already have a the skeleton of terrific support group of secondary scoring and role players. We have veterans in this role such as Roussell, Sutter, Tanev, Edler, Baertschi, Pearson, and Schenn but also a glut of younger guys who have established themselves such as Horvat, Hutton, Stecher and more younger players that are in the midst of establishing themselves such as Gaudette, MacEwen, Brisebois, and many prospects that are poised to establish themselves in the near future such as Juolevi, Woo, Madden.

Overall we have a good young core of star players in place that needs to be supplemented and will be supplemented by the young players we drafted as they develop plus good veteran free agents as they become available. We're on the right track but we need to be patient while at the same time trying to be competitive and have our players playing to the best of their abilities and developing the intangibles necessary to win in the playoffs.
 

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
22,906
6,497
You've obviously taken the time to type out your vision of the Canucks..so all views are appreciated....With your plan,I honestly believe that Bo Horvat would be on the line with his agent asking for a trade.

The only potentially scandalous moves in Y2K's list are trading Markstrom and letting Edler walk.

Punting Sutter, Beagle, Granlund, Motte and Eriksson isn't going to make anyone ask for a trade. Neither is trading Hutton. These are all players you should be able to effectively replace off waivers, or much cheaper via free agency, assuming you can pro scout. In terms of Horvat's own wingers it's likely he goes into next season with Pearson on one wing and potentially Baertschi on the other, so not much different.

For the record I don't think Markstrom will be traded, but I do think there is a very real possibility we lose Edler to free agency. I'd be more apt to try to sign Edler to a ~3 year deal and trade Tanev, personally.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
You've obviously taken the time to type out your vision of the Canucks..so all views are appreciated....With your plan,I honestly believe that Bo Horvat would be on the line with his agent asking for a trade.

Well that's what happens when you waste 5 years trying to push for the playoffs when the team desperately needed to focus on a rebuild.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
The only potentially scandalous moves in Y2K's list are trading Markstrom and letting Edler walk.

Punting Sutter, Beagle, Granlund, Motte and Eriksson isn't going to make anyone ask for a trade. Neither is trading Hutton. These are all players you should be able to effectively replace off waivers, or much cheaper via free agency, assuming you can pro scout. In terms of Horvat's own wingers it's likely he goes into next season with Pearson on one wing and potentially Baertschi on the other, so not much different.

For the record I don't think Markstrom will be traded, but I do think there is a very real possibility we lose Edler to free agency. I'd be more apt to try to sign Edler to a ~3 year deal and trade Tanev, personally.

I don't think you can get anything worthwhile for Tanev at this point. The time to trade him was 3 years ago, but Benning wanted playoffs.

I would not give Edler 3 years. 2 years, at $5M per year, sure (assuming we trade Hutton). Especially if we were able to trade up and snag Byram, a 2 year deal would work perfectly with my plan:

Year 1 - Edler and Hughes are the top 2 defensemen on the left side. Year 2, you got Hughes, Edler, Byram. Year 3 - Hughes is due a raise so give him Edler's money, Edler and Byram take over as the top 2 on the left side.

If you go to 3 years that's when things get tricky. Edler's body is clearly breaking down and that's going to be a bad contract in that 3rd year. Not to mention, we have the expansion draft coming up. If Edler has NMC protection that would force us to protect Edler.

2 years makes sense, and I'm on board with it (even paying a bit more to keep it to 2 years), but anything beyond that should be a definite non-starter.


Now, as I touched on the expansion draft: Markstrom is a UFA after next season. You have to decide whether to keep him or roll with Demko. IMO, Demko showed enough this season (in very limited action, thanks to our coach who wanted to make the playoffs) that I think there is enough there to go with him as our goalie of the future. Start grooming him for that role now. In the expansion draft we can only protect 1, so it makes sense to me to get value out of Markstrom now rather than losing him as a UFA, or losing him or Demko in the expansion draft. Trading away Demko should not be an option, unless the offer for him is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Griffin

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
22,906
6,497
I don't think you can get anything worthwhile for Tanev at this point. The time to trade him was 3 years ago, but Benning wanted playoffs.

I would not give Edler 3 years. 2 years, at $5M per year, sure (assuming we trade Hutton). Especially if we were able to trade up and snag Byram, a 2 year deal would work perfectly with my plan:

Year 1 - Edler and Hughes are the top 2 defensemen on the left side. Year 2, you got Hughes, Edler, Byram. Year 3 - Hughes is due a raise so give him Edler's money, Edler and Byram take over as the top 2 on the left side.

If you go to 3 years that's when things get tricky. Edler's body is clearly breaking down and that's going to be a bad contract in that 3rd year. Not to mention, we have the expansion draft coming up. If Edler has NMC protection that would force us to protect Edler.

2 years makes sense, and I'm on board with it (even paying a bit more to keep it to 2 years), but anything beyond that should be a definite non-starter.

Now, as I touched on the expansion draft: Markstrom is a UFA after next season. You have to decide whether to keep him or roll with Demko. IMO, Demko showed enough this season (in very limited action, thanks to our coach who wanted to make the playoffs) that I think there is enough there to go with him as our goalie of the future. Start grooming him for that role now. In the expansion draft we can only protect 1, so it makes sense to me to get value out of Markstrom now rather than losing him as a UFA, or losing him or Demko in the expansion draft. Trading away Demko should not be an option, unless the offer for him is ridiculous.

I absolutely agree with the entire post. I'm just trying to account for the fact you're going to have a hard time retaining Edler at anything less than 3 years. It'd be an interesting conversation in terms of whether he'd take a 3-year deal with no movement clause versus a two-year deal with a full NMC. But that's really the reason I see a very real risk of Edler leaving in July.

I would also love to find a way to draft Byram and trade Markstrom. Depending on how the draft unfolds, trading up to get Byram might actually be our most likely scenario in terms of movement on draft day. Hughes ain't happening.

And Markstrom just isn't getting traded. Benning has to make the playoffs to retain his job, and like I've said ... trading Markstrom is basically akin to him firing himself.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
I absolutely agree with the entire post. I'm just trying to account for the fact you're going to have a hard time retaining Edler at anything less than 3 years. It'd be an interesting conversation in terms of whether he'd take a 3-year deal with no movement clause versus a two-year deal with a full NMC. But that's really the reason I see a very real risk of Edler leaving in July.

I would also love to find a way to draft Byram and trade Markstrom. Depending on how the draft unfolds, trading up to get Byram might actually be our most likely scenario in terms of movement on draft day. Hughes ain't happening.

And Markstrom just isn't getting traded. Benning has to make the playoffs to retain his job, and like I've said ... trading Markstrom is basically akin to him firing himself.

The fact that Ray Shero was Jim Hughes's agent in the 80's tells me he's not moving Jack Hughes. Jack is going number 1 to New Jersey. The only thing that would change that is if Jim Hughes told Shero that he wants his boys to play together in Vancouver, and while I think that would be an ideal scenario for the family, I just don't see that happening. Our only chance to land Jack Hughes, without winning the lottery, was to end up with a pick that was somewhere in the top 6 or 7, with Colorado winning the lottery. Even that would be unlikely, but I think you could come up with a package that makes enough sense for Colorado to consider it. That's also why I think it's possible we move up to 4.

This is also why it's critical that we get a new GM in place now. This off-season we will either take a big step in the right direction, or we'll take a big step in the wrong direction. With Benning here it's guaranteed it'll be a step in the wrong direction, unfortunately. What's shocking is the amount of people who are more than happy with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dwarf and TruGr1t

vancityluongo

curse of the strombino
Sponsor
Jul 8, 2006
18,561
6,216
Edmonton
These tiers can only define a specific timeframe. Ideally everyone should be approaching this to one day pursue an aggressive strategy.

Visionary: 2019-20 and 2020-21
Patient: 2020-21
Pragmatic: 2021-22
Competitive: 2021-22 and 2022-23
Aggressive: 2023-24 and hopefully beyond

With the caveat that if certain value creating opportunities arise (a disgruntled star asking for a trade or a free agent set on Vancouver at a discount), you take them and re-adjust the plan accordingly.

No plan should be so rigid that if in some insane hypothetical, Ray Shero calls to say he wants to unite the Hughes brothers and would give you Hall and Severson for Quinn, that you still hang up out of principle.

With value creating transactions, you can push the strategy to the next tier. This sounds like Benning's expedited re-tool strategy, yeah, but the plan itself wasn't the problem - it was the execution. If you can get a 90 point forward and a 40 point defenseman for a prospect, suddenly this becomes a roster that you can use a patient approach for rather than a visionary one. Start flipping non-core pieces like Virtanen and Hutton to get pieces that could be core, and then you're possibly looking at a pragmatic approach.

Again, you should be moving through the tiers over time, until you can say with certainty that the heavy lifting is done and it's time to go for it. As it stands, I think the Canucks have at least 1-2 years of the visionary approach before they can look at executing on the next tier, even with the core of EP/Boeser/Horvat/Hughes in place. Problem being that if they continue to pursue a pragmatic/competitive strategy and don't successfully execute (as has been happening IMO for the past 5 years), that 1-2 years of needing to be in the visionary stage holds for perpetuity. Signing Tyler Myers and Michael Ferland does nothing to speed up that visionary timeframe IMO.
 

CloutierForVezina

Registered User
May 13, 2009
5,352
1,246
Edmonton, Alberta
I'm picking two strategies, which is a bit of a cop out.

I honestly think the Canucks should take an Aggressive approach if and only if they are somehow able to convince Erik Karlsson to sign here. Erik Karlsson is the type of asset that simply doesn't become available, ever. I can't remember the last time a multiple Norris winning defenseman hit free agency. His health is a question mark right now, but I'm absolutely willing to gamble on him given the potential upside and positive impact he'd have on this franchise.

With that said, he's literally the only free agent I'd look to sign this summer. If we can't get him, I don't want the Canucks wasting their time or cap space on anyone else and I would immediately switch to a Pragmatic approach.
 

Canadian Canuck

Hughes4Calder
Jul 30, 2013
14,223
3,972
Kamloops BC
Visionary, absolutely. I'm not willing to accept a flawed team trying to push for the playoffs just to make the first round. I want to build a championship team, and the group we have is nowhere close.

Going into next season I would probably go with a lineup like this at forward:

Goldobin-Pettersson-Boeser
Baertschi-Horvat-Leivo
Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen
Gaunce-MacEwen-Pearson

A couple injury concerns on the left wing, but move Pearson up the lineup as needed. My main focus would be clearing the mess that Benning has created when he wasted over $16M of cap space on Eriksson, Beagle, Spooner and Sutter. Dump those players for whatever you can get, and in the case of Eriksson send him to the minors and try to pressure him to retire.


Defense is another issue. I would not be willing to pay anywhere close to $4M for Ben Hutton, and thus would look to trade him this summer. I also would not be willing to go to 3 years on Edler's contract, so he would likely walk. My defense would likely look something like this:

1-year Veteran UFA - Stecher
Hughes - Tanev
Sautner - Schenn
Biega


Yes, it's ugly, it's bad, and it needs a huge revamp. That is part 2 of my plan:


At the draft, assuming Bowen Byram does not go 3rd overall, I would offer up a package to Colorado that includes the 10th overall pick, Ben Hutton, Olli Juolevi, and Jacob Markstrom for the 4th overall pick. That pick would be used to draft Bowen Byram, who I would most likely return to the Giants unless he wows at camp (might even give him a 9-game stint if he has a strong showing). The left side of the defense would be solidified with Hughes and Byram. The right side has Stecher and not much else below him. Jett Woo is a question mark, but the best we have left in the system, so more right side depth would be a priority going forward.

Now, you've noticed I have traded Jacob Markstrom. I would be going with Thatcher Demko and a veteran 1B type of back-up. Someone like Semyon Varlamov or Cam Talbot.

With the extra roster spots I'd be looking for another cheap 1-year center, and a cheap 1-year defenseman. Again, the key is that we are only signing veterans to 1-year contracts. This leaves the team with plenty of cap flexibility, adds a few picks for guys like Beagle and Sutter (I anticipate we could maybe get a 3rd out of the Islanders for Beagle since Trotz is apparently a huge backer of his), and focus on an actual rebuild. Thanks to Benning there isn't much left that we can trade for any worthwhile draft picks, but if we can weaponize our cap space and acquire another top prospect or top pick that would be ideal.

Edmonton, for example, would love to get out of that Lucic contract. If we can get Eriksson to retire I would certainly make a call to the Oilers and ask for their 8th overall pick to take on that Lucic contract.
Love this analysis Y2K
 

Bitz and Bites

Registered User
May 5, 2012
1,717
819
Victoria
Visionary, absolutely. I'm not willing to accept a flawed team trying to push for the playoffs just to make the first round. I want to build a championship team, and the group we have is nowhere close.

Going into next season I would probably go with a lineup like this at forward:

Goldobin-Pettersson-Boeser
Baertschi-Horvat-Leivo
Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen
Gaunce-MacEwen-Pearson

A couple injury concerns on the left wing, but move Pearson up the lineup as needed. My main focus would be clearing the mess that Benning has created when he wasted over $16M of cap space on Eriksson, Beagle, Spooner and Sutter. Dump those players for whatever you can get, and in the case of Eriksson send him to the minors and try to pressure him to retire.


Defense is another issue. I would not be willing to pay anywhere close to $4M for Ben Hutton, and thus would look to trade him this summer. I also would not be willing to go to 3 years on Edler's contract, so he would likely walk. My defense would likely look something like this:

1-year Veteran UFA - Stecher
Hughes - Tanev
Sautner - Schenn
Biega


Yes, it's ugly, it's bad, and it needs a huge revamp. That is part 2 of my plan:


At the draft, assuming Bowen Byram does not go 3rd overall, I would offer up a package to Colorado that includes the 10th overall pick, Ben Hutton, Olli Juolevi, and Jacob Markstrom for the 4th overall pick. That pick would be used to draft Bowen Byram, who I would most likely return to the Giants unless he wows at camp (might even give him a 9-game stint if he has a strong showing). The left side of the defense would be solidified with Hughes and Byram. The right side has Stecher and not much else below him. Jett Woo is a question mark, but the best we have left in the system, so more right side depth would be a priority going forward.

Now, you've noticed I have traded Jacob Markstrom. I would be going with Thatcher Demko and a veteran 1B type of back-up. Someone like Semyon Varlamov or Cam Talbot.

With the extra roster spots I'd be looking for another cheap 1-year center, and a cheap 1-year defenseman. Again, the key is that we are only signing veterans to 1-year contracts. This leaves the team with plenty of cap flexibility, adds a few picks for guys like Beagle and Sutter (I anticipate we could maybe get a 3rd out of the Islanders for Beagle since Trotz is apparently a huge backer of his), and focus on an actual rebuild. Thanks to Benning there isn't much left that we can trade for any worthwhile draft picks, but if we can weaponize our cap space and acquire another top prospect or top pick that would be ideal.

Edmonton, for example, would love to get out of that Lucic contract. If we can get Eriksson to retire I would certainly make a call to the Oilers and ask for their 8th overall pick to take on that Lucic contract.

That's really going all in on Byram and a huge overpayment IMO.
Cory Schneider got us a top 10 pick and Markstrom has been playing on a similar level for about the same length of time but playing on a much worse team so his numbers aren't as great but the talent level is pretty much even.
I'm all in favor of trading Markstrom but we need to get a maximum return as he's one of our few tradeable assets and sending him out as an add on along with our #10 pick is nuts,especially to another up and coming Western conference team who we'll be facing in the playoffs down the road at some point.
I'd offer that deal without the #10 pick and see if Colorado bites,it would give them a bona fide #1 goalie,a top 4 LHD,and a good prospect LHD.It would give them a lot of depth they could use right away while we have to wait for Byram to mature and develop.

I'm not sure about the Lucic thing unless we buy him out right away.No interest in having that useless floater in Vancouver or even in Utica for that matter,I'd rather have Eriksson,TBH.I also doubt Lucic waives to come here either.

I think the whole plan is really risky and would gut what little depth we have and would be a huge step back that could take a lot more than Byram to make up for,even if he does become a true #1 D-man.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ErrantShepherd

elitepete

Registered User
Jan 30, 2017
8,127
5,438
Vancouver
Try to acquire more draft picks, prospects, and young players. Mainly draft picks.

Make ‘hockey trades’ only if we are acquiring younger players that will be with us for a while.

Use cap space as a weapon by taking bad contracts and gaining assets.

Only sign big name free agents like EK and Panarin to long term contracts and avoid guys like Simmonds and Ferland unless they agree to 1-2 year deals. Also try to sign short term UFAs that we can flip for assets later on.

Develop our players through our AHL team and on our roster.

No more long term contracts to old f***ers. So a max term of 2 years to Edler or he can f*** right off.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
That's really going all in on Byram and a huge overpayment IMO.
Cory Schneider got us a top 10 pick and Markstrom has been playing on a similar level for about the same length of time but playing on a much worse team so his numbers aren't as great but the talent level is pretty much even.
I'm all in favor of trading Markstrom but we need to get a maximum return as he's one of our few tradeable assets and sending him out as an add on along with our #10 pick is nuts,especially to another up and coming Western conference team who we'll be facing in the playoffs down the road at some point.
I'd offer that deal without the #10 pick and see if Colorado bites,it would give them a bona fide #1 goalie,a top 4 LHD,and a good prospect LHD.It would give them a lot of depth they could use right away while we have to wait for Byram to mature and develop.

I'm not sure about the Lucic thing unless we buy him out right away.No interest in having that useless floater in Vancouver or even in Utica for that matter,I'd rather have Eriksson,TBH.I also doubt Lucic waives to come here either.

I think the whole plan is really risky and would gut what little depth we have and would be a huge step back that could take a lot more than Byram to make up for,even if he does become a true #1 D-man.

You are grossly overrating Markstrom, and seriously underrating the value of the 4th overall pick. Goalies just don't get traded for picks like this. Schneider was pretty much a one-off, and the offer for Miller in 2015 was largely because of Miller's pedigree. Even the offer with the 10th overall pick might not be enough to get it done.

Benning wasted cap space buying Eriksson for free. I'm proposing adding an 8th overall pick to take on the Lucic contract for 4 years.

Adding Bowen Byram and Matthew Boldy in the draft, while keeping next year's 1st round pick which should be high would be a huge boost to a rebuild. I would wait until before the expansion draft to buy out Lucic, which also gives some time to see if there are any additional compliance buyouts offered in an upcoming CBA.
 

BeardyCanuck03

@BeardyCanuck03
Jun 19, 2006
10,823
410
twitter.com
Pragmatic

Stick to the course, and work on shedding the fat. Don't go after the big money UFA's.

The bare bones Forward group would look like this going into the draft/free agency

______ - Pettersson - Boeser
Pearson - Horvat - _______
Baertschi - Gaudette - Leivo
______ - Beagle - _______
LTIR - Roussel


Boeser, Horvat and Pettersson are the core pieces. Gaudette played well enough to keep a bottom 6 centre role, and with a full season under his belt he should be able to come into camp stronger and faster. Pearson has shown enough chemistry to stay on the Horvat line, and I would like to see Gaudette be given good two way wingers to play with who can help bring along his offensive game without forgetting about his defense. Beagle is there because there is no feasible way to move on from him at this point and he can take some of the tougher matchups. Roussel slides onto Beagle's line when he is healthy and can move up the lineup when a line needs an emotional/physical boost.

The bare bones blueline would look like this going into the draft/free agency

Edler - Stecher
Hughes - Tanev (Schenn)
______ - ______

Stecher and Hughes are the two piece to build around going forward. Edler on a 2 yr deal or a front loaded 3 yr deal with no NTC on the 3rd year. Bring back Schenn on a 1 year deal to be Tanev's understudy and take games from him when he needs / fill in on the 3rd pair for certain games.

Goaltenders are easy

Markstrom
Demko

Top 6 Winger needs
- LW for Pettersson's line, who needs to be a bigger body who can help create more space down low in the zone for Pettersson and Boeser. Targets: Brock Nelson (UFA), Ondrej Palat (Trade)
- RW for Horvat's line, a more skilled player who can play the North South style that makes Horvat successful. Targets: Jordan Eberle (UFA), Nik Ehlers (Trade)

Defensemen Needs
- Right shot Dman who can move the puck well, younger the better. Target: Tim Heed (UFA)
- Stop gap Left shot dman who can play physical but smart until one of Brisebois, Juolevi or Sautner pushes their way onto the roster full time. Target: Ben Lovejoy (UFA)

Trade Pieces
Jake Virtanen, Ben Hutton - These two should have good value and can help in a trade for one of the top 6 winger spots.
Brandon Sutter - To the right team, Sutter still should have value
Ryan Spooner, Markus Granlund, Tim Schaller, Tyler Motte, Nikolai Goldobin - See who is interested and get the best picks/prospects back, even if they are mid to late round picks.

The Loui Eriksson problem
Do whatever possible to get rid of that contract, even if it's buying out as a last resort. At this point the roster spot is more valuable than the cap space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkMM

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
What we need to fix, above the strategy itself, is to use data and science in decisions. If the GM continues to ignore or minimize them, it won't matter what strategy he uses... he'll fail. We are in 2020... and yet I'm not suggested using VR or AR (although that would be cool, and could be leveraged to advantage)... I'm suggesting using post-2000 data and science, including things Gillis was on top of a decade ago. We are currently in the early 90's with this regime... we'd notice improvements by even using old mid-90's business textbooks as the implementation guide.
 

Jay Cee

P4G
May 8, 2007
6,151
1,229
Halifax
What we need to fix, above the strategy itself, is to use data and science in decisions. If the GM continues to ignore or minimize them, it won't matter what strategy he uses... he'll fail. We are in 2020... I'm not suggested using VR or AR (although that would be cool)... I'm suggesting using post-2000 data and science, including things Gillis was on top of a decade ago.

See, the thing is, while being innovative and always looking into new ways of decision making and crunching data, there doesn't appear to be much of a lasting legacy brought forward by Gillis in that regard. I think Gillis wanted to really push the envelope in that regard but he didn't really know how to put it into a coherent team managing strategy from top to bottom. I am not sure anyone has really done so in the NHL in a way you can demonstratively say they are and they are getting results because of it.

Gillis had ideas, maybe he is ready to do something more concrete this time around.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->