Management Thread IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
However the lack of U25 talent is perceived I’m sure everybody can now agree that the way they attempted to replace it by short cutting it with an age gap was poor strategy and failed miserably.

And now beyond the early first rounders there isn’t really a ton of u25 talent pushing the roster.

That’s why they’ve gone out to UFA every year to fill the holes.

The frustration comes from this being entirely predictable as soon as Benning took the job and was further reinforced annually. It gets really frustrating when people try to say there was a rebuild at all. There really wasn’t a concerted effort at all.

And the two rebuilding type moves they have made flopped.

It’s time for change. Nothing this man has shown over 6 off seasons and 5 full seasons on the ice suggests to me he’s up for the task to move this team forward.
 

xtra

Registered User
May 19, 2002
8,323
4,765
Vancouver
Visit site
This is obviously not true. I have to think you know this.

did you want to narrow down the quote any more.

I said if your saying there’s no U25 talent or little from the Gillis team how is the U25 on the team Considered a lot now.

you had Gillis leaving a #2 dman(tanev); #2 Center(horvat) and #1 goalie (markstrom) while saying benning has a lot of U25 talen when he has a future #2 dman(Hughes); #2 winger(boeser); #1 goalie (demko) and then pettersson.

the pettersson difference in the two groups is not enough to say we have a lot of U25 talent now and had none when Gillis
Left.
 

vanuck

Now with 100% less Benning!
Dec 28, 2009
16,797
4,012
The U25 talent thing is a bit of a moot point to me as we had plenty of assets to facilitate a rebuild with anyway had they chosen to do so. Kesler wasn't under 25, yet can anyone argue he wasn't a great trading chip? Neither was Edler. Or Hamhuis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PM, MarkMM and xtra

Pip

Registered User
Feb 2, 2012
69,173
8,486
Granduland
The U25 talent thing is a bit of a moot point to me as we had plenty of assets to facilitate a rebuild with anyway had they chosen to do so. Kesler wasn't under 25, yet can anyone argue he wasn't a great trading chip? Neither was Edler. Or Hamhuis.

Or a 6th overall pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkMM and vanuck

vanuck

Now with 100% less Benning!
Dec 28, 2009
16,797
4,012
This team would have been no worse selling off all their veterans for picks and prospects and doing absolutely zilch via trades/UFA the last couple years and we'd still be in a far better position for the future compared to where we are today.

Like Benning's presence here has actually been a net negative on this franchise. It's pathetic.
 

tyhee

Registered User
Feb 5, 2015
2,535
2,612
As of this minute capfriendly is showing the Canucks with total cap hit of $82,615,867, or $1,115,867 over the limit. They’re using “LTIR.” which I’m putting in brackets because, as Melvin has pointed out several times, there’s no such thing as LTIR, though people refer to the situation where a team gets cap relief because of a long term injury by that name.

They can’t bank LTIR relief though, so it appears that unless the cap situation improves as the season goes on, the bulk of any performance bonuses earned by EP40 or Hughes or other Canucks on entry level contracts will have to be deferred to count against the 2020-21 salary cap.

With EP40 averaging a point per game so far and looking like he has room for improvement while Hughes had 3 points in 5 games while being plus and having (in a small sample size) terrific shot attempt stats despite being used much of the time in defensive situations it wouldn’t be at all surprising to see some bonuses earned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Askel

Canucks1096

Registered User
Feb 13, 2016
5,608
1,667
Looking at the offensive zone starts

Sutter 72%
Beagle 60%
Horvat 45%
Petey 38 %

Sutter in a way made sense because he had to babysit Gaudette for 3 games and Green doesn't trust him taking Dzone faceoffs. Horvat makes sense as well he needs to take more Dzone faceoffs if Gaudette is in the lineup.

Not sure why Beagle has 60% offensive zone starts and Petey 38%.
 

xtra

Registered User
May 19, 2002
8,323
4,765
Vancouver
Visit site
Looking at the offensive zone starts

Sutter 72%
Beagle 60%
Horvat 45%
Petey 38 %

Sutter in a way made sense because he had to babysit Gaudette for 3 games and Green doesn't trust him taking Dzone faceoffs. Horvat makes sense as well he needs to take more Dzone faceoffs if Gaudette is in the lineup.

Not sure why Beagle has 60% offensive zone starts and Petey 38%.


It’s because the bottom 2 lines suck nuts. Putting the blame on gaudette for that is kinda not fair to gaudette
 
  • Like
Reactions: xtr3m

sandwichbird2023

Registered User
Aug 4, 2004
3,835
1,901
As of this minute capfriendly is showing the Canucks with total cap hit of $82,615,867, or $1,115,867 over the limit. They’re using “LTIR.” which I’m putting in brackets because, as Melvin has pointed out several times, there’s no such thing as LTIR, though people refer to the situation where a team gets cap relief because of a long term injury by that name.

They can’t bank LTIR relief though, so it appears that unless the cap situation improves as the season goes on, the bulk of any performance bonuses earned by EP40 or Hughes or other Canucks on entry level contracts will have to be deferred to count against the 2020-21 salary cap.

With EP40 averaging a point per game so far and looking like he has room for improvement while Hughes had 3 points in 5 games while being plus and having (in a small sample size) terrific shot attempt stats despite being used much of the time in defensive situations it wouldn’t be at all surprising to see some bonuses earned.
I'm curious to see what they do when Roussel is clear to return. They have to clear over $3m off the roster somehow. Demoting Gaudette gives them about $1m? Where are the rest going to come from? Does the above include Biega? If so then they just have to clear a little bit more.
I'm not sure how they are going to wiggle themselves out of this. If Gilman was here I'll be more at ease, but with Benning's group, who has shown they can't get under the cap on their own in the past, this might be too much for them to handle.
 

Canucks1096

Registered User
Feb 13, 2016
5,608
1,667
I'm curious to see what they do when Roussel is clear to return. They have to clear over $3m off the roster somehow. Demoting Gaudette gives them about $1m? Where are the rest going to come from? Does the above include Biega? If so then they just have to clear a little bit more.
I'm not sure how they are going to wiggle themselves out of this. If Gilman was here I'll be more at ease, but with Benning's group, who has shown they can't get under the cap on their own in the past, this might be too much for them to handle.

Canucks have 1.63 M in cap space right now according to cap friendly . If they send down Eriksson AND Schaller. That saves another 2 M, so 3.63 M. That will be a 22 man roster but most likely another player will go on ltir when Rousell comes back.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
I'm curious to see what they do when Roussel is clear to return. They have to clear over $3m off the roster somehow. Demoting Gaudette gives them about $1m? Where are the rest going to come from? Does the above include Biega? If so then they just have to clear a little bit more.
I'm not sure how they are going to wiggle themselves out of this. If Gilman was here I'll be more at ease, but with Benning's group, who has shown they can't get under the cap on their own in the past, this might be too much for them to handle.

Care to provide an example of how "Benning's group... has shown they can't get under the cap on their own in the past?"
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,741
23,893
Looking at the offensive zone starts

Sutter 72%
Beagle 60%
Horvat 45%
Petey 38 %

Sutter in a way made sense because he had to babysit Gaudette for 3 games and Green doesn't trust him taking Dzone faceoffs. Horvat makes sense as well he needs to take more Dzone faceoffs if Gaudette is in the lineup.

Not sure why Beagle has 60% offensive zone starts and Petey 38%.

Looks pretty clear to me why these percentages are this way - bottom six can't be trusted in the slightest to get the puck out of their own zone, so that burden has to be put on the top two lines. Sad, considering the amount of cap being spent for those bottom six players.
 

vanuck

Now with 100% less Benning!
Dec 28, 2009
16,797
4,012
Looking at the offensive zone starts

Sutter 72%
Beagle 60%
Horvat 45%
Petey 38 %

Sutter in a way made sense because he had to babysit Gaudette for 3 games and Green doesn't trust him taking Dzone faceoffs. Horvat makes sense as well he needs to take more Dzone faceoffs if Gaudette is in the lineup.

Not sure why Beagle has 60% offensive zone starts and Petey 38%.
I like that you actually brought this up as some of us noticed this in the game against CGY too - IIRC Beagle had 0 starts in his own end that night.

At first glance, it appears they're already aware that our bottom 6 centers get caved in at ES and thus have to give them as much offensive zone time as possible to shield them from looking bad. That's if you think they actually pay attention to possession stats. Definitely something to keep an eye on over the next little while.

A savvy reporter would pick up on this and ask Green what's going on with those zone starts. But I doubt it'll happen.

Reminds me of the way they sheltered Hodgson with OZ starts before trading him. Except I'm not sure this management group has ever thought about doing the whole "pump and dump" thing with Sutter. I mean, it might be the case if only his OZ% was inflated but it's the same with Beagle too.
 

Jyrki21

2021-12-05
Sponsor
Looks pretty clear to me why these percentages are this way - bottom six can't be trusted in the slightest to get the puck out of their own zone, so that burden has to be put on the top two lines. Sad, considering the amount of cap being spent for those bottom six players.
You’d think when devoting your bottom 6 to an all-grit-no-offense philosophy that it’d be for the express purpose of deploying them defensively.

I guess we’re all just wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vanuck and timw33

timw33

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 18, 2007
25,709
19,426
Victoria
first season when the nhl guided them through the process At the start of the season

The NHL telling them they didn't need to waive Corrado they could just paper Hutton down and recall, and then they waived Corrado anyways.

The NHL telling them they had the wrong ELC length for the Tryamkin contract and then sending a league wide memo reminding teams of signing age/ELC length.

The NHL telling them they can't discuss players who are under contract with other organizations.
 

Jay Cee

P4G
May 8, 2007
6,151
1,229
Halifax
You’d think when devoting your bottom 6 to an all-grit-no-offense philosophy that it’d be for the express purpose of deploying them defensively.

I guess we’re all just wrong.

That's what one would think. It's all for nothing if they can't do anything.
 

sandwichbird2023

Registered User
Aug 4, 2004
3,835
1,901
Care to provide an example of how "Benning's group... has shown they can't get under the cap on their own in the past?"
Didn't they have to get the league's help to get "under the cap" before the 2016/17 season? I remember reading something about that, might be from Friedman. I can try to dig something up later tonight if you want, but I thought that was common knowledge? Pretty sure it was the same summer to the Subban tempering.

Edit: what timw33 posted above
 
Last edited:

Nomobo

Registered User
Feb 20, 2015
6,136
2,857
Victoria
You’d think when devoting your bottom 6 to an all-grit-no-offense philosophy that it’d be for the express purpose of deploying them defensively.

I guess we’re all just wrong.
Who really gives a **** how they’re deployed as long as they’re playing a good team game? It’s not about a certain philosophy, it’s about winning ******* hockey games.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
first season when the nhl guided them through the process At the start of the season

The NHL telling them they didn't need to waive Corrado they could just paper Hutton down and recall, and then they waived Corrado anyways.

They didn't waive Corrado for cap purposes did they? I seem to remember they waived Corrado because he didn't earn a spot. Hutton did. Why would they "paper" Hutton?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->