Management Thread. The Good The Bad and The Ugly: Gunslinger Edition.

[IslandBeast]

Re-sign the remaining RFAs. Cheap, depth defenseman on 1 year deals. Absolutely no more long contracts on older vets.

That should of been the plan 3-5 years ago, this year we should of been filling wholes with vets.. We're going backwards it seems

 

[Hodgy]

I see a lot of posts about them "losing Markstrom" or "losing Tanev" and that really misses the point. I would have rather let those players walk too. Well, actually I would have rather traded them but nevermind.

The point is that they have finally made the playoffs after 4 years of being in the NHL basement and now are poised to go into next season with Jalen Chatfield in their top-4 because of their incredible myopia of the years past, and there is no clear path to fixing this.

And if you dial the calendar back one year, this is exactly what us henny pennies were talking about. It was obvious to everyone who could see past the end of their noses that this was happening.

This team should have been doing whatever it could 2-3 years ago to dump Sutter's contract, and avoiding giving term to the Beagles and Ferlands of the world, but they just kept charging forward with the idea that future cap space was unimportant and that they'd magically find a way to make it work once they got there. Well, they got there. Now we are here. And while the off-season is far from over, the team as its set up right now looks like one that's set to spend another 2 or 3 years in the basement.

One thing you didn’t mention, and something I also haven’t touched on so thought your post was a good jumping off point, but in a well implemented rebuild I agree that you trade a Tanev or Markstrom type player as they age out. You can then obtain assets for these players, but you need to be in a position to replace the players from within.

Either the Canucks don’t have replacement depth, or they do, but they didn’t test that depth enough at the NHL level to be comfortable replacing the applicable players with such depth. For Markstrom, it’s probably the latter, and for Tanev it could be either. But the bottom line is that when Markstrom and Tanev were starting to age out but still demand big money, we weren’t in a position where we felt they were expendable. Now we are forced to take what will be a massive leap of faith in hoping that some of our young and unproven players will take big steps forward next season.

 

[Melvin]

One thing you didn’t mention, and something I also haven’t touched on so thought your post was a good jumping off point, but in a well implemented rebuild I agree that you trade a Tanev or Markstrom type player as they age out. You can then obtain assets for these players, but you need to be in a position to replace the players from within.

Either the Canucks don’t have replacement depth, or they do, but they didn’t test that depth enough at the NHL level to be comfortable replacing the applicable players with such depth. For Markstrom, it’s probably the latter, and for Tanev it could be either. But the bottom line is that when Markstrom and Tanev were starting to age out but still demand big money, we weren’t in a position where we felt they were expendable. Now we are forced to take what will be a massive leap of faith in hoping that some of our young and unproven players will take big steps forward next season.

Which, again, was entirely predictable to anyone with a modicum of foresight. If the team had mentally moved on from Markstrom last year and put more focus on getting Demko ready to carry the torch, we'd arguably be in a better position right now. Which is what I had been arguing for for the last 2 years.

But since the PlaYoFFs were so important, now you have to decide if you continue to "go for it" and trade picks+prospects to make 2021 a playoff year, or if you want to immediately take a step back.

Which honestly, once they decided that the time is NOW and we need to go all-in, getting Markstrom signed and trading Demko for a package would have also made sense.

But they did neither, and the "wait and see" plan now puts them in the worst possible position.

 

[Hodgy]

Which, again, was entirely predictable to anyone with a modicum of foresight. If the team had mentally moved on from Markstrom last year and put more focus on getting Demko ready to carry the torch, we'd arguably be in a better position right now. Which is what I had been arguing for for the last 2 years.

But since the PlaYoFFs were so important, now you have to decide if you continue to "go for it" and trade picks+prospects to make 2021 a playoff year, or if you want to immediately take a step back.

Which honestly, once they decided that the time is NOW and we need to go all-in, getting Markstrom signed and trading Demko for a package would have also made sense.

But they did neither, and the "wait and see" plan now puts them in the worst possible position.

Absolutely, they needed to decide last summer whether Markstrom was in their long term plans based on their projections for him and his contract demands. But as you say, and quite predictably, they (both Benning and Green) were too concerned about trying to make the playoffs and saving their jobs that they never explored these options. And it was so predictable that this would be the case.

Worse yet, was the year before last, when they were out if the playoffs early, they still didn’t play Demko much.

 

[Canucks1096]

Absolutely, they needed to decide last summer whether Markstrom was in their long term plans based on their projections for him and his contract demands. But as you say, and quite predictably, they (both Benning and Green) were too concerned about trying to make the playoffs and saving their jobs that they never explored these options. And it was so predictable that this would be the case.

Worse yet, was the year before last, when they were out if the playoffs early, they still didn’t play Demko much.

That's because they were not out early. The year before the Canucks were officially eliminated from making the playoffs on March 29, 2019. After that date both Demko and Markstrom got 2 starts each.

 

[Bubbles]

Absolutely, they needed to decide last summer whether Markstrom was in their long term plans based on their projections for him and his contract demands. But as you say, and quite predictably, they (both Benning and Green) were too concerned about trying to make the playoffs and saving their jobs that they never explored these options. And it was so predictable that this would be the case.

Worse yet, was the year before last, when they were out if the playoffs early, they still didn’t play Demko much.

Agreed. And also, during the Benning years, the Canucks have either made the playoffs, or really challenged for the last playoff spot. Hence, trading pending UFAs near the trade deadline (where they have actual value) was never a point. Yes, there was that one year we traded some, but not often.

Also, every year (including this year) we go on a post deadline decline where we don't make the playoffs.

I would have rather had two completely awful years to rebuild (a la Sens), than this mickey mouse year-to-year fumble Benning has gotten into.

 

[Hodgy]

That's because they were not out early. The year before the Canucks were officially eliminated from making the playoffs on March 29, 2019. After that date both Demko and Markstrom got 2 starts each.

You are referring to mathematically eliminated which is obviously a useless reference date since teams are practically eliminated much earlier which was the case two seasons ago.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Absolutely, they needed to decide last summer whether Markstrom was in their long term plans based on their projections for him and his contract demands. But as you say, and quite predictably, they (both Benning and Green) were too concerned about trying to make the playoffs and saving their jobs that they never explored these options. And it was so predictable that this would be the case.

Worse yet, was the year before last, when they were out if the playoffs early, they still didn’t play Demko much.

So they should have thrown away last year instead of playing their best team under contract.
The Canucks belief is young players need to earn their play. You seem to want them to gift jobs to young players. If so then you should be happy with the older players leaving. Demko, OJ, Rafferty, Virtanen and even Boeser will all be given greater roles. They will sink or swim without Tanev, Stecher, Toffoli, and Markstrom. If they succeed then team is in great shape, If not then hope next group, Podz, Hoglander, Rathbone, Tryamkin need to jump in. If not then team is screwed until contracts run out. I believe in Demko and I think Markstrom offer was fair. I have no issues how goalie situation was handled. We need another right dman who can work on pk.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Agreed. And also, during the Benning years, the Canucks have either made the playoffs, or really challenged for the last playoff spot. Hence, trading pending UFAs near the trade deadline (where they have actual value) was never a point. Yes, there was that one year we traded some, but not often.

Also, every year (including this year) we go on a post deadline decline where we don't make the playoffs.

I would have rather had two completely awful years to rebuild (a la Sens), than this mickey mouse year-to-year fumble Benning has gotten into.

What? This team has been a Bottom 5 team most years under Benning.

Other than the first year where they made the playoffs and this past year, which they would have missed again as well if the pandemic didn’t hit, every other year has been a shit show.

They should have dealt more players at the TDL but they are so delusional, they thought they could still make the playoffs even though the team was either the worst or one of teams in the league during the second half of the season.

This team has been run by clowns.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Why Sign Myers and trade for Toffoli if your planning on taking a step back this year? They’re just fumbling year to year without any vision for the future. There is no long term strategic planning here.

 

[Bubbles]

What? This team has been a Bottom 5 team most years under Benning.

Other than the first year where they made the playoffs and this past year, which they would have missed again as well if the pandemic didn’t hit, every other year has been a shit show.

They should have dealt more players at the TDL but they are so delusional, they thought they could still make the playoffs even though the team was either the worst or one of teams in the league during the second half of the season.

This team has been run by clowns.

Please read carefully. And look at the stats. We always been really close to that last playoff spot every year, near the deadline. So hence, we do nothing. After the deadline, we tank like always, and end up bottom 5. It's that hope that always gets Benning.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Please read carefully. And look at the stats. We always been really close to that last playoff spot every year, near the deadline. So hence, we do nothing. After the deadline, we tank like always, and end up bottom 5. It's that hope that always gets Benning.

It doesn’t matter if the team was close, they always had to pass 4-5 teams which never was going to happen.

In addition, the only reason they were ever “close” is cause they start off well.

Then by January they got their stride of shit hockey.

Rinse and repeat.

Benning is clueless and anyone with half a brain could see the insanity of this playing out every year.

 

[Bubbles]

It doesn’t matter if the team was close, they always had to pass 4-5 teams which never was going to happen.

To you and me and everyone else, of course it was never going to happen.

But to Benning it's that glimmer of hope. It demonstrates that he has no long term plan, and never sells (except that one terrible year)

My point is that stupid glimmer of hope every single season since has kept this organization from truly moving forward from 2011.

 

[Hodgy]

So they should have thrown away last year instead of playing their best team under contract.
The Canucks belief is young players need to earn their play. You seem to want them to gift jobs to young players. If so then you should be happy with the older players leaving. Demko, OJ, Rafferty, Virtanen and even Boeser will all be given greater roles. They will sink or swim without Tanev, Stecher, Toffoli, and Markstrom. If they succeed then team is in great shape, If not then hope next group, Podz, Hoglander, Rathbone, Tryamkin need to jump in. If not then team is screwed until contracts run out. I believe in Demko and I think Markstrom offer was fair. I have no issues how goalie situation was handled. We need another right dman who can work on pk.

When did I say I wanted to gift players spots? My point is that good teams draft and develop young players such that when older players start aging out and/or demanding too much money, they have young players to replace these players. Part of this process is ensuring that the young players are good enough to replace the old players. This should occur organically as the young players earn their minutes. But management needs to identify young players that’s ready by giving them an opportunity. This is the goal and something that this management has utterly failed to do.

Instead, we play Juolevi for 7 minutes and then almost pencil him into the NHL. Ironically this is the type of gifting a roster spot to a young player which you stated this organization doesn’t do. Which absolutely wasn’t true anyway - see Jake Virtanen.

 

[Canucks1096]

You are referring to mathematically eliminated which is obviously a useless reference date since teams are practically eliminated much earlier which was the case two seasons ago.

Most of March 2019 they were about 4 to 6 points back from a playoff spot. 4 to 6 points in my opinion is not practically being eliminated. If 4 to 6 points back of a playoff spot is your definition of being practically eliminated from the playoffs and we should give up on the season. Then I guess we need to agree to disagree.

 

[Hodgy]

Most of March 2019 they were about 4 to 6 points back from a playoff spot. 4 to 6 points in my opinion is not practically being eliminated. If 4 to 6 points back of a playoff spot is your definition of being practically eliminated from the playoffs and we should give up on the season. Then I guess we need to agree to disagree.

On March 3rd, they were 8 points out of 8th. So ya, finished.

 

[Canucks1096]

On March 3rd, they were 8 points out of 8th. So ya, finished.

But March 20th they were down to 4 points. Not sure if any teams that are 4 points down with 10 games left and tell themselves. We are going to give up on this season because playing our a goalie of the future a few more games is more important.

 

[Hodgy]

But March 20th they were down to 4 points. Not sure if any teams that are 4 points down with 10 games left and tell themselves. We are going to give up on this season because playing our a goalie of the future a few more games is more important.

You should take a look at the chances of making the playoffs when out 8 points in early March, and then make decisions based on that.

 

[Hodgy]

But March 20th they were down to 4 points. Not sure if any teams that are 4 points down with 10 games left and tell themselves. We are going to give up on this season because playing our a goalie of the future a few more games is more important.

You should take a look at the chances of making the playoffs when out 8 points in early March, and then make decisions based on that. Whether they almost made up those points or not isn’t relevant.

 

[timw33]

You should take a look at the chances of making the playoffs when out 8 points in early March, and then make decisions based on that. Whether they almost made up those points or not isn’t relevant.

It's not really about being 8 points out, it's being 8 points back *and* having to leapfrog like 4-5 teams, i.e you have to have 9 more points than 4-5 other teams, some of whom might play each other and guarantee points going to one of them.

 

[Canucks1096]

It's not really about being 8 points out, it's being 8 points back *and* having to leapfrog like 4-5 teams, i.e you have to have 9 more points than 4-5 other teams, some of whom might play each other and guarantee points going to one of them.

1 team

 

[carrotshirt]

You should take a look at the chances of making the playoffs when out 8 points in early March, and then make decisions based on that. Whether they almost made up those points or not isn’t relevant.

It is somewhat relevant... because they didn’t make up those points, they didn’t make the playoffs, and that kind of strengthens the idea that they should have sold that deadline.

And the one before.

And the one before that.

We’ve let how many players just wander off the team? There are times when that makes sense, but generally you’d want to recoup some assets when players (especially players with value) are being subtracted from your squad.

Benning does not seem able to do this.

Asset management during this front office reign has been completely abysmal.

 

[Hodgy]

1 team

It doesn’t really matter. My point is that they were practically eliminated, being 8 points out in March, which is absolutely true. The fact that they creeped back to four points out is irrelevant. Do you not understand how long the odds are when you are 8 points out in March? Or are you just arguing in bad faith?

 

[Peen]

@Canucks1096 Just curious about the recent fixation on dates?

You've argued recently about Linden having strong influence until his departure date and that the canucks were seriously in a playoff fight all of March. Like, it's a very strange thing to get at.

By that same thought process, is the cap situation we faced in 2020 solely on Benning because Linden was gone? No, Linden was a part of the horrible decision making and direction and took part in awful contract signings from 14-17 that still impact us now.

It's very strange and I think you know it's a bit ridiculous. Seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

House of cards crumbling.

Finally the never-capspacers get a glimpse of what the rest of us have seen all along.

"But who could have possibly seen this coming? Who?"

I roll my eyes. Leave it to anti-intellectualists to defer to authority unequivocally unwilling to notice that they too are fallible.