Confirmed Signing with Link: [VAN] F Andrei Kuzmenko signs extension with the Canucks (2 years, $5.5M AAV)

[Martin Skoula]

Why not rent him out and re-sign him in the summer?

 

[jackjohnson]

No
Just Pettersson is really good.

Yeah but Pettersson being really good does not take away from Kuzmenko's skills as he showed he can score in breakaways, shoot outs and make passes too, not to mention ability to dangle and deke players out of their jockstrap. I think the signing is good for Canucks.now they need to cut the fat out

 

[bossram]

This is a more constructive response and let me suggest we tone down the rhetoric and show more kindness to each other like this post exemplifies (I'm responsible for this too for sure).

I think part of the problem is that the vibes around the Canucks are terrible, everyone hates the owner, and we are having a season where literally everything is going wrong.

Now, part of the latter is a blessing because it means we can lance the boil and also get a great pick in a great draft. But we're not quite as far away as this season makes it look.

For example, I hope we can move Miller, but let's not forget that in a bad season he's on pace for 80 points or so (while yes, being an atrocious 'leader'), and last year he was a 1st line center who put up 99 points. The truth probably exists somewhere in between. We have some pieces playing well this year (precious few) but we also have some who are really struggling but are good players.

Without reloading this season/off-season we are f***ed, so don't think I'm arguing for a status quo.

But we have an elite #1 center and an elite top pairing D, we have Podkolzin who will be a really useful top 6 driver (I firmly believe), we have Kuzmenko. There are others I won't get into unless you want further examples.

These are the guys you build around. Starting at zero you are praying we find an EP and a Hughes.

The time to rebuild was 2016 or so and we didn't do it. But now we have a core to be built around, and I genuinely believe there's a way to do it.

Yeah, I thought I would tone down given the vitriol thrown each way. It didn't have to be that way, I don't think you needed to start by replying with a comment that was purely meant to be condescending.

I honestly think our views are closer than you may think. I would want to move Miller too, though it's not realistic. I do think it is possible to build around Petey and Hughes, but they should be much more aggressive with selling everyone else. I legitimately do not think there is much else worth keeping on the roster - at least not for long enough that they could provide value above contract when the Canucks might be actually decent again. If Petey and Hughes don't want to wait for that, well, the only other alternative is a true rebuild.

 

[jackjohnson]

You could be right. I just don't think so, given it'll take 2-3 years just to extricate all the roster dreck, and additional years to have accumulated enough of an asset base to meaningfully improve the team. If it's gonna take that long, might as well rebuild. Petey and Quinn will be approaching 30 by then.

If you want to get in to that then we will be in the never ending cycle of rebuilding everytime someone gets close to 30 yet we draft players who are 18, wait for them 2 to 3 years to blossom and at age of 21 or 22 hope they become NHL players. Wait for them to hit their prime at age 25 to 26. So that means basically we only have 4 years to compete for playoffs and that is if we have 22 1st round picks drafted at the same time otherwise you end up with the same problem that Canucks have. I mean your logic is flawed because there is no way we can accumulate 22 picks at same time, hope all of them workout and then makes sure all are same age when competing for the cup because if they hit 30, you say they should be traded. I mean it's an idiotic and flawed logic if you think about it. A cup contender realistically needs a mix of young players and vets so if Kuzmenko, Petersson and Hughes hit 30 in 3 years, they will just be the vets leading the group of young players and older players. You can't possibly expect to have a Stanley cup contender with everyone being under 30.

 

[bossram]

If you want to get in to that then we will be in the never ending cycle of rebuilding everytime someone gets close to 30 yet we draft players who are 18, wait for them 2 to 3 years to blossom and at age of 21 or 22 hope they become NHL players. Wait for them to hit their prime at age 25 to 26. So that means basically we only have 4 years to compete for playoffs and that is if we have 22 1st round picks drafted at the same time otherwise you end up with the same problem that Canucks have. I mean your logic is flawed because there is no way we can accumulate 22 picks at same time, hope all of them workout and then makes sure all are same age when competing for the cup because if they hit 30, you say they should be traded. I mean it's an idiotic and flawed logic if you think about it. A cup contender realistically needs a mix of young players and vets so if Kuzmenko, Petersson and Hughes hit 30 in 3 years, they will just be the vets leading the group of young players and older players. You can't possibly expect to have a Stanley cup contender with everyone being under 30.

What is this word salad lmao. You're talking about "flawed logic" yet want to claim I said a bunch of things I never said.

Where did I say everyone must be under 30? Where did I say they need to accumulate 22 1st round draft picks?

 

[jackjohnson]

Yeah, I thought I would tone down given the vitriol thrown each way. It didn't have to be that way, I don't think you needed to start by replying with a comment that was purely meant to be condescending.

I honestly think our views are closer than you may think. I would want to move Miller too, though it's not realistic. I do think it is possible to build around Petey and Hughes, but they should be much more aggressive with selling everyone else. I legitimately do not think there is much else worth keeping on the roster - at least not for long enough that they could provide value above contract when the Canucks might be actually decent again. If Petey and Hughes don't want to wait for that, well, the only other alternative is a true rebuild.

Well of course if Hughes and Petersson don't sign them we definitely have to start from scratch with no guarantees of how the rebuild will look. They would need to tank for 5 to 6 years and accumulate enough 1st round picks and hope their high picks are not busts to have some semblance of a competitive core and then add support players through smart FA signings and trades. All of that needs to go right, even FA signings because a couple of bad signings or trades like OEL or Myers etc. Will not only ruin the rebuild and derail it, it would mean we would just be a bubble team again. Buffalo and Arizona have been rebuilding for 2 decades now and they haven't accomplished crap. Oilers were very very lucky with their 5 1st overall picks yet they still aren't cup contenders because of bad trades and signings.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Yeah, I thought I would tone down given the vitriol thrown each way. It didn't have to be that way, I don't think you needed to start by replying with a comment that was purely meant to be condescending.

I honestly think our views are closer than you may think. I would want to move Miller too, though it's not realistic. I do think it is possible to build around Petey and Hughes, but they should be much more aggressive with selling everyone else. I legitimately do not think there is much else worth keeping on the roster - at least not for long enough that they could provide value above contract when the Canucks might be actually decent again. If Petey and Hughes don't want to wait for that, well, the only other alternative is a true rebuild.

It wasn't actually meant to be condescending, but it was a superficial attempt at humour.

I know you were using Taj's post to illustrate what you already thought, but it could have easily been interpreted as you saying, "See! Taj agrees with me, what more do you want?" and I was just leaning into that for humorous effect.

 

[jackjohnson]

What is this word salad lmao. You're talking about "flawed logic" yet want to claim I said a bunch of things I never said.

Where did I say everyone must be under 30? Where did I say they need to accumulate 22 1st round draft picks?

Well you keep obsessing about players reaching close to 30 like their hockey career ends at 30. I said by that logic then you need to draft a lot of young players at the same time because if you are drafting normally, by the time you want to compete and have a complete roster, some of the young players that you drafted earlier will now be 30 years old. That's is what I mean by flawed logic. You aren't thinking about these things when you have that rule of keeping everyone below the age of 30. So what if Petersson turns 30 in 3 years? How old is Marchand and Bergeron?

 

[jackjohnson]

What is this word salad lmao. You're talking about "flawed logic" yet want to claim I said a bunch of things I never said.

Where did I say everyone must be under 30? Where did I say they need to accumulate 22 1st round draft picks?

Another thing is you are forgetting about player development, having players that bust and trades that might not work out or signings that become boat anchors like Myers and Boeser. You need to think that everything goes smooth and hope for luck in the draft. Its easy to trade everyone and rebuild but it's tough to build a team to win a cup and that's why some teams haven't won it in 60 years or so. And rebuilding perpetually like Arizona will have the same outcome as Arizona.

 

[bossram]

Well you keep obsessing about players reaching close to 30 like their hockey career ends at 30. I said by that logic then you need to draft a lot of young players at the same time because if you are drafting normally, by the time you want to compete and have a complete roster, some of the young players that you drafted earlier will now be 30 years old. That's is what I mean by flawed logic. You aren't thinking about these things when you have that rule of keeping everyone below the age of 30. So what if Petersson turns 30 in 3 years? How old is Marchand and Bergeron?

Talk about obsession with age 30...

Again, you are arguing things I've never said. Please show me where this "rule" of "must be under 30" is. Where did I say that? Please quote it. Where did I say every player must be under 30.

I'm saying, because the timeline to turn this team around is so long, Petey and Hughes will be approaching 30. I don't get the resistance to a rebuild when the timeline for a rebuild would be essentially the same. It actually makes more sense to sell more aggressively now, get more picks and prospects now, so that there are backfilling players for Petey and Hughes in 3-5 years. If they keep trying to win now, there won't be anything coming in behind when they realistically might be in a place to compete.

Once again, please, show me where I said, "every player must be under 30" and I'll admit I have "flawed logic".

Another thing is you are forgetting about player development, having players that bust and trades that might not work out or signings that become boat anchors like Myers and Boeser. You need to think that everything goes smooth and hope for luck in the draft. Its easy to trade everyone and rebuild but it's tough to build a team to win a cup and that's why some teams haven't won it in 60 years or so. And rebuilding perpetually like Arizona will have the same outcome as Arizona.

Answer the questions. Why are you ignoring them? Could it be because you're trying to claim I said things I never said?

 

[DekeyPete]

Good chemistry with pettersson, good enough for me.

 

[byrath]

Well you keep obsessing about players reaching close to 30 like their hockey career ends at 30. I said by that logic then you need to draft a lot of young players at the same time because if you are drafting normally, by the time you want to compete and have a complete roster, some of the young players that you drafted earlier will now be 30 years old. That's is what I mean by flawed logic. You aren't thinking about these things when you have that rule of keeping everyone below the age of 30. So what if Petersson turns 30 in 3 years? How old is Marchand and Bergeron?

The idea of keeping Hughes/Petey/Demko/Kuzmenko as the vets at 30-33 years old is nice but I'm not sure how realistic it is. They have to want to stay through another 5+ years of the team either spinning its wheels or rebuilding. I'm trying to think of players that stayed on the same bad team for all of their twenties, since UFA became 7 years experience or 27 years old. RNH and Doan are the closest I can think of, though I could easily be missing some obvious ones as my memory is terrible.

 

[HockeyWooot]

Signing is fine, IF they proceed to trade off the wider group of players (Horvat, Boeser, Garland, Miller, etc).

It’s a trade off to lock him up now versus 2 years down the line, probably too bit a bet off a 50 game sample size. If he proves himself as a consistent 70+ point guy they can pay him as such, IF they’ve moved all the aforementioned players off the roster.

 

[Senor Catface]

Why not rent him out and re-sign him in the summer?

I imagine playing for a non-dumpster fire organization would seriously affect him wanting to come back in the summer.

 

[jackjohnson]

Good player - decent deal.

As an unbiased observer, I have no idea what Van City is doing though? I’d be selling everything. He would have gotten you a haul.

Selling everything and starting from zero? So you would also sell Hughes, Pettersson, Demko, Podkolzin etc.??? Why do that though? Don't get when people want to sell off great young players to draft and hope their draft develops to be as good as young player

 

[jackjohnson]

But who is going to be taking the Canucks shitty older players that they want to trade to clear cap space?

The issue isn't with signing Kuzmenko, it's the Canucks are just treading water with a team that clearly doesn't work and they're only willing to move players that other teams won't want.

Well you have to buyout some of them and trade sweeteners to get rid of other ones like OEL. Some of them are easy to get rid of like Boeser and Horvat and even Miller. They have some value. Some are immoveable like OEL and Myers which you would have to add something to get rid of. But they would be ahead if they are least have a nucleus for the future team. Pettersson, Demko, Hughes and Kuzmenko are great pieces to build around. Those are solid foundation that are proven and still young enough to become vets for the new team moving forward. Obviously it takes time but I think they can get rid of majority of the players they want to trade in 2 years with exception of OEL. Myers, Pearson, Poolman and Boeser are expiring contracts in 2 years or so. Garland and Horvat have value and could be easily offloaded this trade deadline day. So that leaves us with Miller and OEL which we can't move but Miller is still a contributing member and still has some usefulness. That's not a huge concern and in 2 years if we get some hits on the draft and some of our prospects like Licker, Silovs etc. Develop then we can start moving in the right direction.

Mikheyev-Pettersson-Kuzmenko
Podkolzin-Miller-Hoglander
UFA-Licker-Kilomavich
Joshua-Studnicka-Lazar

Hughes-X
Rathbone-X
OEL-X

Demko
Silovs
Those x spots can be filled by players that we get from trading Horvat, Garland, Boeser etc. Open up some cap space and just draft good players and sign college guys and European free agents like Kuzmenko. I think people here think the only way to get players is only from draft and forget about college and European FAs or trades or UFA signings. What Canucks are missing this season was Demko not being Demko and also 2 good defensive defensemen that can also pass and move the puck. I think they can clear cap in the next 2 years and draft good players in draft this year if they can trade Horvat, Garland, Schenn and Boeser and end up close to the bottom of the league. Add 2 to 3 1st round picks to this year's draft would be very valuable.

 

[jackjohnson]

Why not rent him out and re-sign him in the summer?

Because the trading team would not let him walk and just extends him. GMs are not dumb like Benning who let Toffoli walk while losing assets for nothing

 

[Kshahdoo]

People don't understand one thing - you don't trade FAs who chose your team before 31 others. Especially if the players want to stay and are even ready to give you discount. If you trade them, who the hell will choose your team next time when you try to sign another free agent?

 

[KingsFan7824]

Why not rent him out and re-sign him in the summer?

Would you want the girl you've developed a relationship with for a year to go out with other guys because you're pretty sure she'll be coming back for another date? You let a 27 year old on pace for 37g and 75pts hit the market, he might find that he has a better option out there.

I'm saying, because the timeline to turn this team around is so long, Petey and Hughes will be approaching 30. I don't get the resistance to a rebuild when the timeline for a rebuild would be essentially the same. It actually makes more sense to sell more aggressively now, get more picks and prospects now, so that there are backfilling players for Petey and Hughes in 3-5 years. If they keep trying to win now, there won't be anything coming in behind when they realistically might be in a place to compete.

Most teams don't voluntarily rebuild. They do it because the owner get cheap, top players choose to leave, or you just get too old and there's really no other choice.

The problem with rebuilding is that, odds are, the result 5 years down the line will be that you're still not a real contender. There's what, like 5 true contenders at any given time? Somewhere around there. The rest of the league is just hoping they get on a good run one year. If there's no guarantee that a rebuild will put you at the top of the league, it's not easy to go ahead and waste 4 or 5 years.

When it works, it's the smartest decision any GM ever makes. When it doesn't work, which is the most likely scenario, you're then fired, and whoever takes over might even attempt another rebuilding effort if they're brave enough. Now instead of 3-5 years of crap, it's 7-9. Or, the owner doesn't want to rebuild again, so he gets a guy that will double down on what you did, maybe get to the playoffs, but not win much of anything. Which is probably what happens had they rebuilt again anyway.

We think of rebuilding as some elixir. I get it, it provides hope. Potential is great. Anything could happen. Just like draft picks though, you never know. On draft day, this guy is going to be great. Oh, they got a diamond in the rough in the 4th rd. Then a couple years later, that great prospect is ok, but not game changing, and that 4th rd pick burned out at 20, and was a decent AHLer for a year.

 

[JTmillerForA1stLOL]

Would you want the girl you've developed a relationship with for a year to go out with other guys because you're pretty sure she'll be coming back for another date? You let a 27 year old on pace for 37g and 75pts hit the market, he might find that he has a better option out there.



Most teams don't voluntarily rebuild. They do it because the owner get cheap, top players choose to leave, or you just get too old and there's really no other choice.

The problem with rebuilding is that, odds are, the result 5 years down the line will be that you're still not a real contender. There's what, like 5 true contenders at any given time? Somewhere around there. The rest of the league is just hoping they get on a good run one year. If there's no guarantee that a rebuild will put you at the top of the league, it's not easy to go ahead and waste 4 or 5 years.

When it works, it's the smartest decision any GM ever makes. When it doesn't work, which is the most likely scenario, you're then fired, and whoever takes over might even attempt another rebuilding effort if they're brave enough. Now instead of 3-5 years of crap, it's 7-9. Or, the owner doesn't want to rebuild again, so he gets a guy that will double down on what you did, maybe get to the playoffs, but not win much of anything. Which is probably what happens had they rebuilt again anyway.

We think of rebuilding as some elixir. I get it, it provides hope. Potential is great. Anything could happen. Just like draft picks though, you never know. On draft day, this guy is going to be great. Oh, they got a diamond in the rough in the 4th rd. Then a couple years later, that great prospect is ok, but not game changing, and that 4th rd pick burned out at 20, and was a decent AHLer for a year.

You're a Kings fan so I don't blame you, but when you apply this logic to the Canucks over the last decade the irony is hilarious.

 

[TFHockey]

It would appear to me that the Canucks are going to go through a retool and not a rebuild. In their view a few minor changes will right the ship. I guess we'll see.

 

[Siludin]

Why not rent him out and re-sign him in the summer?

I don't think this sits as well with the players as it does with hardcore fans, tbh. The fans can tolerate it but I think it affects the team spirit when this stuff happens. The illusion of "teamhood" is pretty hard to preserve in the NHL when it's so business-driven, and this type of thing doesn't really help. I especially don't think you do this with a player you just acquired in a competitive round of free agency either. Kuzmenko may like Vancouver but he may not like being part of the hockey management meta-game this early into his career. But if I was playing EHM or something I would be 100% on-board with this - it does make logical sense in a vacuum to maximize on his value.

 

[bossram]

Would you want the girl you've developed a relationship with for a year to go out with other guys because you're pretty sure she'll be coming back for another date? You let a 27 year old on pace for 37g and 75pts hit the market, he might find that he has a better option out there.



Most teams don't voluntarily rebuild. They do it because the owner get cheap, top players choose to leave, or you just get too old and there's really no other choice.

The problem with rebuilding is that, odds are, the result 5 years down the line will be that you're still not a real contender. There's what, like 5 true contenders at any given time? Somewhere around there. The rest of the league is just hoping they get on a good run one year. If there's no guarantee that a rebuild will put you at the top of the league, it's not easy to go ahead and waste 4 or 5 years.

When it works, it's the smartest decision any GM ever makes. When it doesn't work, which is the most likely scenario, you're then fired, and whoever takes over might even attempt another rebuilding effort if they're brave enough. Now instead of 3-5 years of crap, it's 7-9. Or, the owner doesn't want to rebuild again, so he gets a guy that will double down on what you did, maybe get to the playoffs, but not win much of anything. Which is probably what happens had they rebuilt again anyway.

We think of rebuilding as some elixir. I get it, it provides hope. Potential is great. Anything could happen. Just like draft picks though, you never know. On draft day, this guy is going to be great. Oh, they got a diamond in the rough in the 4th rd. Then a couple years later, that great prospect is ok, but not game changing, and that 4th rd pick burned out at 20, and was a decent AHLer for a year.

The bolded is the only relevant point here.

What is the likelihood of a rebuild turning into a contender down the line? What is the likelihood of whatever Rutherford/Allvin are doing turning into a contender down the line? You estimate the odds of each and choose the likelier path.

Considering I think there is essentially 0% chance that whatever Rutherford/Allvin are doing will turn the Canucks into contenders, the only option I am left with is a more aggressive rebuild. Finishing between 9th and 12th in the conference every year is far more of a waste than an intentional rebuild.

 

[RabidOne]

He is 17. And just 2 points out of 10th.

You are splitting hairs. Right now he is 18th and 4 points out of 10th. As is Stamkos.
The point was there are lots of players right around him that other teams would much rather have.
Would you take Petterson over Mackinnon? Would you take Petterson over Dahlin? Thats is a #1 D man that is only 22 and has one less point than Petterson.

 

[gritdash60]

I guess i got shadowbanned so i can say this, f*** a russian.