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

[MarkMM]

Well, I think it was pragmatic

I would like Benning to do a review, of what is working and what is not.....and what he can do to improve

Amateur Drafting.......B+...…………………...Great picks in general
Pro Signing...…………..C+ ………………...…..Hire new pro-scouts
Contract resolution....C....…………………….Hire a cap guru
Asset Management.....C...……………………..Review and adjust
Farm Team...…………..C-...…………………….Investigate and Review

I would like to see assets like Markstrom, Hutton, Tanev, Sutter, Baertschi all moved for picks
(hopefully 2019 Picks)

I would like to see some ingenuity in making these trades...……….example
Player B = 3rd pick...………...so package that with an extra 3rd Round to obtain a 2nd

I would like to see aggressive use of our extra Cap space...………..example
Cap dump player + 1st for Canucks 2nd (buy 1 year contracts)

If signing a UFA, make it a 26 year old, high end UFA...…..no middle or bottom type
(Does not have to be Panarin or Karlson)
Sign for 5 or 6 years depending on current skill level and in consultation with new head of Pro scouting

Benning needs to get to Utica, review what veterans are needed, review how the coaching staff is using them
and investigates why players are requesting trades or leave...adjust according

In general, I like the Canucks direction, but in some cases, we should trade players who have solid years
No more, being in love with a player, as it muddies the direction the team should be heading in, if that player
should be traded.....No more NTC's

Like the approach but think you're being too generous compared to the performance we'd need to be building towards a contender, asset management and farm team are no higher than a D.

 

[tantalum]

Benning doing an effective review implies that he is capable of that activity. To this day I really don't think that he thinks he has made any egregious errors. If it wasn't for a coach essentially forcing the issue on Real Gud, and likely Eriksson as well, I don't think he owns up to that mistake. And I'm not sure he did own up to it.

 

[TruGr1t]

Benning doing an effective review implies that he is capable of that activity. To this day I really don't think that he thinks he has made any egregious errors. If it wasn't for a coach essentially forcing the issue on Real Gud, and likely Eriksson as well, I don't think he owns up to that mistake. And I'm not sure he did own up to it.

Do you recall Benning's "in depth" review of Utica?

He flies into Utica, gets off the plane and says: "Trent Cull is my guy and everything is great!"

Super in-depth review.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I feel like as things stand flexibility is key to any long term plans. If, for example we know Tyramkin is looking to come back in when his contract expires that changes how I'd approach revamping our defensive unit. If somebody is over valuing an asset that I consider movable that could change things.

Of course all of this flexibility would be in service of shedding a bad contracts, and balancing improving areas of current weakness with grabbing extra 2nd to 4th round draft picks. I think a full rebuild will waste Horvat, Boeser, Peterson and Hughes so I'd aim to beat the odds and try to pull off a two year retool.

If that fails or is a non-starter due to my being able to acquire the required parts then everybody outside of the four names I mentioned are on the trade block for futures. I might even add Horvat to the block if the offers are right, though he's young enough that he should still be a valuable asset 5 years down the line.

 

[Fire Benning]

Somewhere between Patient and Pragmatic.

The deep rebuild/visionary scenario was more apropos for when Benning took over, but to be honest the emergence of Pettersson as being a guy who you can build a team around changes that for me imo, with him in the mix and being on an ELC the goal should be to become a playoff team fairly soon.

That doesn't mean you should avoid trying to pick up extra draft picks when the opportunity comes, you always should. The entire scouting department of the organization needs to be revamped, just hasn't been good enough. Benning gets ripped for his "hockey trades" and trades involving sacrificing picks and rightfully so because the results of those moves haven't resulted in tangible improvement of the team, the philosophy behind these moves isn't necessarily the problem, the problem was targeting Granlund and Pouliot. Look at how Ryan O'Reilly and Niederreiter got stolen for insanely cheap prices, this are the types of moves I'd be looking to make.

Just as the pro scouting department needs to be rejigged, the amateur scouting does to. The way an organization should operate is year after year, you have quality guys who cook in the minors for a few years after being drafted and are able to come up and fill empty spots on the roster, this hasn't been the case over the last 5 years outside of the few guys picked out of the first round who have been promising. Having a pipeline like this helps to replenish your own roster and also give you an excess of assets that can be used in acquiring established help from elsewhere. Being able to identify quality college free agents and the like also helps in this, not much beyond Stecher with this regime.

The last part is where a deep rebuidist would interject and mention that drafting well is easier with a high volume of picks in a draft (9 or 10 maybe). And they would be right, however a) as I already said I'm not sure going into a deep rebuild is as reasonable at this point b) the current roster is such a mess I'm skeptical that much of what one would want to move could be turned over into picks unlike Detroit or the Rangers in recent years.

Dead weight on the roster also needs to be cut. As for free agency, avoiding Eriksson-type deals for ~50-55 point 30 year olds in the future should be a no brainer. Only go after free agents who will cost a ton but are truly great players who will make a difference (Karlsson, Panarin etc.), or cheaper bargain options who can help make a difference on the margins.

 

[TruGr1t]

Pretty core to this discussion:



I haven't read the Athletic article, but this reaffirms what a lot of us believe. The Canucks "improvement" last season is a lot of smoke and mirrors largely driven by a decrease in quality in the Western Conference. The remainder is mainly attributed to Markstrom. The Canucks were actually worse at preventing goals last year.