Management Thread | Starting with a Thud Edition

[4Twenty]

Why the hell would Boeser take a 1 year term at a number lower than his qualifier?
2 year term would probably mean the number is around 7.

A) the team could’ve chosen to take him to team elected salary arbitration.

B) Qualify him then

C) they got a minuscule $900k discount but had to get 3 years

It appears from your responses to my posts you’re limiting options in your analysis’.

It’s not like they got a heavy discount. They got basically a league minimum salary off.


I stand by my claim. 3 years at this rate is miles worse than 1 year at the QO (and I also belief they’d have had a great case to get 15% off that in arb).

 

[sandwichbird2023]

The praise, patience, and excuses they're receiving in spades for accomplishing nothing is both confounding and nauseating.

If you said a year after hiring Rutherford we'd have this roster, cap situation, draft capital, prospects and multiple controversies most ppl would not be happy, impressed or even neutral.

Think of the patience fans and the owner had for Benning, until the day he was fire, there were still defenders. This is nothing.

 

[racerjoe]

Did I miss somehting, when was it reported we couldn't trade for Bear because of Cap? I was under the impression it was the cost of the Canes were asking.

 

[4Twenty]

Did I miss somehting, when was it reported we couldn't trade for Bear because of Cap? I was under the impression it was the cost of the Canes were asking.

Did you miss Rutherford saying it yesterday?

 

[arttk]

A) the team could’ve chosen to take him to team elected salary arbitration.

B) Qualify him then

C) they got a minuscule $900k discount but had to get 3 years

It appears from your responses to my posts you’re limiting options in your analysis’.

It’s not like they got a heavy discount. They got basically a league minimum salary off.


I stand by my claim. 3 years at this rate is miles worse than 1 year at the QO (and I also belief they’d have had a great case to get 15% off that in arb).

If you take him to arb then you are going to lose him period. Whatver the arb rewards he can take a 1 year deal and then he’s a UFA. We will not be able to trade him because he took the decision.
It’s like the worst option because you will have an angry player that won’t stay, you won’t get any assets and the savings you get is like 20% at best?

They didn’t get a big discount because his QO gives him leverage.

I think Boeser can live up to a 6.6 price tag, he will most likely not live up to a 7M cap.

 

[racerjoe]

Did you miss Rutherford saying it yesterday?

I have only caught what has been posted here. Can you please quote it? I am not somewhere I can listen to the interview. Please and thank you.

 

[Hit the post]

If you take him to arb then you are going to lose him period. Whatver the arb rewards he can take a 1 year deal and then he’s a UFA. We will not be able to trade him because he took the decision.
It’s like the worst option because you will have an angry player that won’t stay, you won’t get any assets and the savings you get is like 20% at best?

They didn’t get a big discount because his QO gives him leverage.

I think Boeser can live up to a 6.6 price tag, he will most likely not live up to a 7M cap.

That damn Mike Gillis leaving the next GM to cleanup such a mess.

 

[4Twenty]

If you take him to arb then you are going to lose him period. Whatver the arb rewards he can take a 1 year deal and then he’s a UFA. We will not be able to trade him because he took the decision.
It’s like the worst option because you will have an angry player that won’t stay, you won’t get any assets and the savings you get is like 20% at best?

They didn’t get a big discount because his QO gives him leverage.

I think you’re wrong about the can’t trade part but none of that seems worse than having a one way soft slow scoring winger for 3 more seasons.


They chose to give him 3 years.


If they qualified him they’d still have next off-season to make the call.


3 years was the worst option imo.

 

[arttk]

I think you’re wrong about the can’t trade part but none of that seems worse than having a one way soft slow scoring winger for 3 more seasons.


They chose to give him 3 years.


If they qualified him they’d still have next off-season to make the call.


3 years was the worst option imo.

Pros and cons of 3 years

Pro
If he scores at a 60ish point pace, he will be worth the contract and you can keep him or trade him and get actual assets back. You can shit on him for being soft or whatver but that doesn’t change the fact a 60ish point goal scorer has value.

If he scores 30+ goals then the extra years will be seen as a pro to the trade partner because it’s cost control.

Con
If he doesn’t hit 60ish point then he’s overpaid and we are going to have to take something back to trade him.

If he scores like 40ish points then he’s like a cap anchor, but that would require him to have a steep decline.

 

[Vector]

I have only caught what has been posted here. Can you please quote it? I am not somewhere I can listen to the interview. Please and thank you.

I posted the full quote in the Fantasy thread.

 

[4Twenty]

I posted the full quote in the Fantasy thread.

I knew you did but I was looking in this thread. Thanks.

 

[racerjoe]

I posted the full quote in the Fantasy thread.

Thanks, I will check it out.

 

[Vector]

Thanks, I will check it out.

You know what, I double checked and it’s not there. Must have been from a different part of the interview.

Rutherford does say that they didn’t have the cap space to acquire Bear earlier. That tracks with the reports that part of the reason the deal got done was the Hurricanes newfound willingness to retain.

 

[credulous]

the issue with the dickinson/stillman transaction isn't that the canucks paid a 2nd to clear 1.4 mil in cap it's that they did when they had better options to clear cap that wouldn't have cost them a 2nd:

don't sign mikheyev. he's been alright but he's not an irreplaceable piece. they could have easily found a cheaper winger to play on the third. someone like evan rodrigues or calle jarnkrok

don't sign boeser. this has been discussed to death

put dermott on LTIR. this would have cleared more cap than the dickinson/stillman transaction and he ended up on ltir anyways. this only buys time, but poolman going on ltir solves that problem

move garland or myers. they're clearly trying to do it, why wait?

move poolman with the 2nd. this clears slightly less cap immediately but deals with a longer term problem

 

[F A N]

A) the team could’ve chosen to take him to team elected salary arbitration.

B) Qualify him then

C) they got a minuscule $900k discount but had to get 3 years

It appears from your responses to my posts you’re limiting options in your analysis’.

It’s not like they got a heavy discount. They got basically a league minimum salary off.


I stand by my claim. 3 years at this rate is miles worse than 1 year at the QO (and I also belief they’d have had a great case to get 15% off that in arb).

For me it comes down a bit to asset management vs making the changes you want sooner.

Keeping a player when the deal isn't there sounds good in asset management theory, but there will be times when it doesn't work out, especially when it comes to high ticket players. We've been in opposite ends of the spectrum over the years.

Gillis traded Schneider instead of Luongo because he didn't get the deal he wanted from Luongo and later had to dump Luongo anyways (deal salvaged by the pick becoming Horvat and Markstrom blossoming into an elite level goaltender).

Benning traded Kesler for what he could get (and there's a lot of people here who felt Benning should have kept Kesler until he got a better deal).

Recently we did this with Miller. Tried to trade him, didn't like what was coming back and decided to extend him instead.

Boeser was shopped as well and we ended up extending him (granted it's a bit of a no harm no foul from my perspective since we would have signed Boeser for ~his AAV had we signed him to a 6 year deal three years ago before Benning "ran out of cap space." Right now, the bet on Boeser isn't looking so good.

 

[4Twenty]

For me it comes down a bit to asset management vs making the changes you want sooner.

Keeping a player when the deal isn't there sounds good in asset management theory, but there will be times when it doesn't work out, especially when it comes to high ticket players. We've been in opposite ends of the spectrum over the years.

Gillis traded Schneider instead of Luongo because he didn't get the deal he wanted from Luongo and later had to dump Luongo anyways (deal salvaged by the pick becoming Horvat and Markstrom blossoming into an elite level goaltender).

Benning traded Kesler for what he could get (and there's a lot of people here who felt Benning should have kept Kesler until he got a better deal).

Recently we did this with Miller. Tried to trade him, didn't like what was coming back and decided to extend him instead.

Boeser was shopped as well and we ended up extending him (granted it's a bit of a no harm no foul from my perspective since we would have signed Boeser for ~his AAV had we signed him to a 6 year deal three years ago before Benning "ran out of cap space." Right now, the bet on Boeser isn't looking so good.

Yeah I can see the spectrum you’re referring to but i don’t get really the no harm/no foul comment though. There is harm.

What could’ve occurred doesn’t matter now when evaluating the decision.

Same with the Miller move. There can be harm and foul there too, even if he was acquired “for a low 1st”.

 

[mriswith]

Well I asked because I haven’t been paying attention prior to like uhh two days ago? Not trying to troll.

Honestly if you fundamentally disagree with their strategy, then you are going to disagree with everything they do.

In terms of passiveness, I just don’t believe there is any aggressive way to improve the D. How do you aggressively get rid of OEL and Myers? Package picks and more assets and retain cap? That will just f*** us up even more.

Like let’s focus on Myers, we know he is a liability and we need to get rid of him. You can hope somebody wants him and want to pay something to trade for him, you can spend assets to trade him away or you can wait a year for his contract to become attractive and then get rid of him. Option 1 is out of your control because it requires other team interest and Myers to waive. There are rumors Myers refused a trade so you are left with option 2 or 3. Option 2 would be bad because we don’t have assets to include and we don’t have assets to trade for a replacement. Option 3 then becomes the logical choice. And then you have to weigh in the outcome, let’s say we spend assets to move out Myers and at that point we don’t have assets to acquire a replacement and the only option is Klingberg as UFA. Would that change worth the assets you have spent or is the gain is so meh that you might as well wait another year. Looks like waiting is probably the better option.

OEL… I don’t even know we have the assets or if it’s possible at all without us retaining way too much cap. Never mind him having a NMC.

There is an infinite appetite for players like Myers. Gudbranson got 4x4, Risto just started his new deal, etc. OEL might be interesting to certain teams with 2 mil retained and that's a lot better than a buyout.

We wanted to move wingers in summer and buy dmen, and the market couldn't have been worse for those moves.

However, the flipside of it having been nearly impossible to buy better dmen is that it was a great time to sell. There was a gigantic demand for dmen that went unfilled. It was a great opportunity to sniff around on dumping OEL and Myers.

This would have meant taking a small step back while we waited for better opportunities, and unfortunately apparently small steps back are not allowed on this team. Management's difficult task of improving the roster with no cap or assets is made dramatically worse by the total unwillingness to take even a minor and temporary step back.

 

[F A N]

Yeah I can see the spectrum you’re referring to but i don’t get really the no harm/no foul comment though. There is harm.

What could’ve occurred doesn’t matter now when evaluating the decision.

Same with the Miller move. There can be harm and foul there too, even if he was acquired “for a low 1st”.

Fair enough. What I meant is that most of us were on board giving Boeser a 6 year contract so that's kind of how I view the recent extension. It's basically the same deal as if we had given him a 6 year deal in the first place. But never mind me...

 

[arttk]

There is an infinite appetite for players like Myers. Gudbranson got 4x4, Risto just started his new deal, etc. OEL might be interesting to certain teams with 2 mil retained and that's a lot better than a buyout.

We wanted to move wingers in summer and buy dmen, and the market couldn't have been worse for those moves.

However, the flipside of it having been nearly impossible to buy better dmen is that it was a great time to sell. There was a gigantic demand for dmen that went unfilled. It was a great opportunity to sniff around on dumping OEL and Myers.

This would have meant taking a small step back while we waited for better opportunities, and unfortunately apparently small steps back are not allowed on this team. Management's difficult task of improving the roster with no cap or assets is made dramatically worse by the total unwillingness to take even a minor and temporary step back.

There is a difference between paying a UFA 4M vs paying assets to get a guy that costs 6M. I guess you can argue we could give Myers away for free but then you still need to find a team that has 6M in cap space to do it.

 

[Buresflyingelbow]

Rathbone is going to be leading the defence? He's getting crushed out there in sheltered minutes so far this season, just as he was last season before getting sent to Abbotsford.

He has all the tools to develop into a high end Dman, his skating is absolutely top notch and that is what the league is moving to with puck moving Dmen. He just needs games and opportunities. If he doesn’t pan out then they should focus on moving forward with just Hughes.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

If you take him to arb then you are going to lose him period. Whatver the arb rewards he can take a 1 year deal and then he’s a UFA. We will not be able to trade him because he took the decision.
It’s like the worst option because you will have an angry player that won’t stay, you won’t get any assets and the savings you get is like 20% at best?

They didn’t get a big discount because his QO gives him leverage.

I think Boeser can live up to a 6.6 price tag, he will most likely not live up to a 7M cap.

Isn't the difference between 6.6 and 7 = 0.4? That is no difference at all!
Honestly even if we took BB6 to arbitration and he becomes UFA this coming summer, unless he scores 70pts or more, he's not getting more than the $6.6m anyways. We basically paid him as a 70pts one way winger before he shows he can do it. It's all risk and no reward. That's why that contract is so problematic.

 

[arttk]

Isn't the difference between 6.6 and 7 = 0.4? That is no difference at all!
Honestly even if we took BB6 to arbitration and he becomes UFA this coming summer, unless he scores 70pts or more, he's not getting more than the $6.6m anyways. We basically paid him as a 70pts one way winger before he shows he can do it. It's all risk and no reward. That's why that contract is so problematic.

His QO is 7.5. I am not saying he will get that much in the open market but if you take him to arb with the goal of reducing his QO, then you will most likely burn that bridge and he will not resign here and you will lose him without getting any assets back.

 

[F A N]

There is a difference between paying a UFA 4M vs paying assets to get a guy that costs 6M. I guess you can argue we could give Myers away for free but then you still need to find a team that has 6M in cap space to do it.

In terms of passiveness, I just don’t believe there is any aggressive way to improve the D. How do you aggressively get rid of OEL and Myers? Package picks and more assets and retain cap? That will just f*** us up even more.

Like let’s focus on Myers, we know he is a liability and we need to get rid of him. You can hope somebody wants him and want to pay something to trade for him, you can spend assets to trade him away or you can wait a year for his contract to become attractive and then get rid of him. Option 1 is out of your control because it requires other team interest and Myers to waive. There are rumors Myers refused a trade so you are left with option 2 or 3. Option 2 would be bad because we don’t have assets to include and we don’t have assets to trade for a replacement. Option 3 then becomes the logical choice. And then you have to weigh in the outcome, let’s say we spend assets to move out Myers and at that point we don’t have assets to acquire a replacement and the only option is Klingberg as UFA. Would that change worth the assets you have spent or is the gain is so meh that you might as well wait another year. Looks like waiting is probably the better option.

Friedman reported that there's a price on Myers and if a team is willing to pay it the Canucks would be willing to talk (suggesting that management wasn't interested in simply dumping him). Based on the reporting, Myers clearly had trade value.

As for Myers being willing to waive, his NTC became a 10 team no trade on July 1st. This is normally not prohibitive.

 

[Blue and Green]

He has all the tools to develop into a high end Dman, his skating is absolutely top notch and that is what the league is moving to with puck moving Dmen. He just needs games and opportunities. If he doesn’t pan out then they should focus on moving forward with just Hughes.

Apparently he doesn't have the tools because if he did he wouldn't be struggling at age 23 to crack a weak defence corps. This "puck-moving defenceman" stuff is getting out of hand; they still have to be able to defend.

 

[Green Blank Stare]

Friedman reported that there's a price on Myers and if a team is willing to pay it the Canucks would be willing to talk (suggesting that management wasn't interested in simply dumping him). Based on the reporting, Myers clearly had trade value.

As for Myers being willing to waive, his NTC became a 10 team no trade on July 1st. This is normally not prohibitive.

They're nuts if they're putting any price on Myers. The team is better without him, regardless of what they get back. He's an anchor to the entire team.

Giving him away for free would be a major win let alone getting anything in return.