Noble 6

I think that you are overestimating the next contracts for most of those UFAs. Savard will probably be the most expensive one at the price/term you mentioned, but the others should get considerably less. The other three players on that list could be under 4M, which saves 2M+ against the cap with likely more flexibility in term/trade protection as well. Since the on ice change would likely be marginal, that's a pure win in my mind. The "incentive to sign here" point could be made in every single offseason with every single player, yet players still choose to sign here. Why did Holtby choose us? Why did Hawryluk? Why did MacEwan, Roussel, Hamonic, Pearson (extension) want to sign here? Pearson could have signed a one year league minimum deal to join the Lightning, but chose not to. Dadanov signed in Ottawa, Hoffman took a 1 year deal, Hall chose Buffalo, etc. It's rare that a decision is made purely for competitive reasons and if Vancouver can present itself as a good fit (which it seems to have in the past, particularly for young players) then I'm not sure why it would randomly become a concern now. It's not like I listed one or two names and if we don't get them we're hooped, I listed 14+ names total of varying quality/price to choose from. For example, Montour in leaving Buffalo at the deadline said that things felt disorganized there. He felt he didn't have a clear role and there wasn't enough consistency in communicating what was expected from him. Vancouver in their pitch to him and his party could say that should he sign here, he would be the 2nd unit powerplay guy behind Hughes with the expectation of generating offense and moving the play forward from the back end. They would want him to play fast and aggressive, relying on his skating to push the pace. Moreover, his career was looking good in Anaheim but stagnated in Buffalo. Maybe a return to the west coast would be good for him and his family as well. Montour could see this as an opportunity to play well in his defined role for 1-2 years with some good players in a hockey market and then hopefully set himself up for a bigger contract (with Vancouver or elsewhere) after proving he can perform. This would be similar to what Barrie did this offseason and is just one example of a potential pitch. Regarding the trade targets, Virtanen for Miller is a trade that Buffalo fans have generally been content with. I don't think that would deplete our assets. Mayfield would be a tougher grab, but like I said with Expansion they may be more willing to move him than normal. The Islanders already dumped Toews (who has been one of the best defensemen in the league) last year and they have Pulock and Dobson as RHD already. Again, all of those names were just ideas being thrown around. If we don't land the exact guy we want then there's no need to panic, that's how you end up overpaying and making foolish decisions. I'm sure that among the 14+ options I listed we can find 2 that work.

UFA targets: Savard Demers Larsson Montour All should sign for less than Myers' current cap hit with varying terms. Savard will probably get a 4ish year deal while Montour could potentially be had on a 1-2 year deal. Trade targets: Miller Mayfield Both could end up as victims of the Expansion draft. If they would rather get an asset for them, then they could be moved (particularly Miller). Those lists include right handed defensemen exclusively. If we bring back Hamonic or another similar caliber of player for Hughes and then play Schmidt at RD, we can also add a LHD instead. Trade targets include Nutivaara (who we were rumoured to be interested in), Graves, Dunn and Zadorov. UFA targets could include Hjalmarsson, Martinez, Oleksiak, Oesterle, etc. There are plenty of options, you just have to go find them.

I understand the Expansion angle, but Myers shouldn't be protected. That's the problem. Seattle wouldn't take him with that contract and if they did then even better.

I sincerely hope that Gaudette starting the Canucks outbreak isn't the reason for this. That's terrible decision making and evaluation by management and is a fileable offense. I agree that it likely isn't the case though. I can understand why he didn't sell high. Management wanted to see if Gaudette could take the next step. If he proved that he could find a role on our team going forward, then you keep him. If he doesn't take the step, then his value is low and you have to decide if you hold him for a while longer or just cut him loose. Unfortunately player evaluation takes the inverse route of asset management. They felt like Gaudette's potential was worth taking the risk on and they felt it just wasn't there. Whether that proves to be a wise decision or not remains to be seen.

Gaudette? Nothing makes sense unfortunately.

If this move was made primarily to protect Myers in Expansion, then I am not happy at all. If this move was made to bring in a reclamation RHD for cheap who can fill out our depleted roster for the year, then I'm content. I will choose the second option for now.

This is the exact deal I expected NOT to happen given Benning's comments. If you prioritize a 6th over "doing right by the players," then why even say that in the first place? Communication makes a sub par GM a horrible GM.

I've settled in to being content with this deal now. I would have been happy to move Gaudette last year so I'm not shaken over losing him. Watching him play, it's clear that he can finish off plays with his shot from anywhere off a broken play. But that was pretty much all he had. I wouldn't have minded keeping him for some bottom-6 offence, but not a big loss. I would not be surprised at all if Highmore turns into another Motte for us. Motte was given a clear role and opportunity to earn his spot in Vancouver and made the most of it, exceeding expectations. Highmore could turn out to be similar in that sense. Motte wasn't a regular PKer before coming here, now he's arguably our best defensive forward. I don't think it's a stretch to think that Highmore could turn out similar.

I liked Highmore for the Blackhawks against the Oilers in the bubble. With that said, the value on this deal is quite low. I don't mind the fact that he was moved, but at least he was showing that at worst he could contribute offense from the bottom 6 with his shot and finishing. He could have found a role here, even if it was lower than the 3C spot we were hoping for. As it stands right now, the Canucks lost value on this deal. This leads me to believe that it had more to do with shipping out Gaudette than it did with bringing in Highmore. Whether that's because management didn't feel he was dedicated enough, he wasn't fitting in the locker room or he has shown careless behavior away from hockey (COVID) is all just speculation right now. I wouldn't be surprised if he does light it up in Chicago, for a short time at least. I'm not sure where Highmore fits in next year. On LW, we have Pearson locked in, one of Podkolzin or Hoglander, Roussel, Motte and Highmore. Miller could also go back to LW on the lotto line as well. Hopefully that means a trade is coming, namely moving Roussel.

This is great news. Great contract.

Cheap depth. Who knew.

Full disclosure, I haven't really watched any of these players. Clarke would easily be the best organizational fit for us. Adding a young RHD that we should be able to build a second pairing around would be invaluable. That gives us Hughes on one pair and Clarke on the other, both playing with complimentary partners to round out to the top 4. After that it looks like Rathbone and Juolevi will be in a dogfight for the right to be the young defender on the third pairing for the near future. Hopefully one of them would be able to play more minutes effectively with Clarke down the line. Clarke would also take a lot of pressure off of Woo, who is our only real RHD prospect. He's showing well, but still a couple years away most likely. That suddenly becomes an influx of 2-3 young defenseman over 1-3 years, which is great. Thinking about the draft in general, there were rumours back in 2019 that Zegras was the guy the Canucks wanted. They ended up with Podkolzin who looks pretty good, but he's a different style of player. If they wanted Zegras back then, it would appear as though some high end skill and creativity would be in consideration now since it wasn't addressed at the 2020 draft. That puts a name like Johnson in my head as someone who fits that bill. This draft seems exciting but also dreadful with all the uncertainty. Usually you can focus in on 3-5 or so guys at our spot, but it really could go down any way this year.

How will next year be better? We'll still have a bunch of holes and no cap space to address them.

I ask each of you that have replied so far, what is your opinion on the main point I brought up? Namely, how do you think the past offseason will impact the Pettersson and Hughes negotiations this offseason? @BCNate @Toyotasfan @goalie13 @Ghostsof1915

I think the sentiments expressed in this post are the general consensus among the replies so far. I fully agree that each individual player we lost can be justified. Markstrom's contract was long and expensive. Tanev and his injury history. Toffoli only played 17 games with us, we did everything without him anyway. Stetcher and Leivo are depth guys. But when you add it all up and you see that we went 0/5 on retaining players, that's where the issue lies. None of the replies have addressed the main point I brought up. How does this affect Pettersson and Hughes' stances this offseason?

I used team and coach interchangeably. Berube coached through 4 rounds on the way to the Stanley Cup the year prior. In terms of big moments in the NHL Playoffs, he had significantly more experience than Green. DeBoer went to the finals with the Sharks. Again, much more experience than Green who was in his first NHL Playoffs. Ultimately a red hot goalie can overcome any issue or strategy, but Green made a lot of good decisions throughout. The main thing that stood out to me was the response after a loss each game. That speaks to the buy in he get's from the players and the belief they had in their game and their strategies. He switched Pettersson and Horvat, put Toffoli on PP1 instead of Boeser, hid our 3rd line, etc. In the Vegas series they decided to not even contend against them along the boards and for loose pucks because they were losing every race and battle to the bigger, stronger forwards. They collapsed to the inside and allowed a large volume of shots from the outside with a focus on preventing grade A chances and rebounds. That's a strategy you can run when your goalie gives a performance like Demko did. If he saw the puck, it was getting stopped. They played very patient and tried to counterattack when Vegas was stretched thin. If Boeser scored on that 2-on-1 with Horvat there's a very good chance the Canucks would have been off to the next round.

I was referring to St. Louis and Vegas. Both of those teams have been on runs in the recent years and knew the territory better than Green, but Green stepped up to the plate.

The Canucks organization had a very successful bubble. The young core proved that they could step up, dominate in big games and not back down. The vets proved that they could still play hard minutes effectively and make key contributions to the team success. The coaching staff demonstrated that they knew what buttons to push in order to get the most out of the entire roster and that they wouldn't get outcoached by more experienced opponents. Management proved that the moves that had been made actually could supplement a young core and elevate them to within 5 minutes of the conference finals. After years of horrible hockey that lead to the Canucks being the only franchise to depreciate in value over Benning's tenure [1], everyone was excited to be with the Canucks. Then Free Agency came and all of the positive momentum that had been built was stopped dead in its tracks. We all know how the big three UFAs in Markstrom, Tanev and Toffoli all left along with smaller pieces like Stetcher and Leivo. Debates can be had about whether re-signing one ore more of those players to contracts similar to ones they received elsewhere would have been worthwhile or not, but the bottom line is this: None of the players who could have been brought back, were brought back. We all know the effect that losing those players had on our team chemistry. Markstrom and Tanev were mentors to the young core, Stetcher was a die hard Canucks, etc. There's no question that it played a big part in the Canuck's horrible start and at this point likely lost season. But it could be worse than that. We all know that Pettersson and Hughes, our two franchise players, need new contracts at the end of the year. It's also no secret that they will also likely ascend to being the two highest paid players on the team and deservedly so. We also know how team success is much more likely when your star players have lower cap hits than their market worth. The argument that is often made is "We can keep the group together if you sign at this number." This is a valid stance that management and fans often take, putting the team's success above an individual player's payday. The team will stay together if you take a lower cap hit. The real damage from the past offseason could be seen this coming offseason, when Pettersson and Hughes balk at those claims. They watched last year as lifetime Canucks who had been significant contributors to the team's rise were kicked aside in rude fashion [2], even when they were very accommodating to ensure a return [3]. The precedent has already been set, management does not make it a priority to keep the existing team together [4]. Similar events took place in management as well with Brackett leaving. You can't keep the team together if they've already left. What reason would Pettersson and Hughes have to put the team first? The team didn't put a single one of Markstrom, Tanev, Toffoli, Leivo or Stetcher first. The last two especially were cheaper players that should have been easy to fit in with some effort, but there wasn't any. If Pettersson and Hughes are on their ELCs and an exodus of that magnitude can happen, then making 10% less on their next deal isn't going to help anyone in their mind. Might as well get paid then. This is a big concern heading into this offseason. The organization would have to work around those two contracts no matter what, but they've likely made it more difficult for themselves. Pettersson has already switched to a bigger agency. His previous agent only had one big name contract, William Karlsson in Vegas, who signed a team friendly deal. The new agent is the same one as Hughes and works for some of the biggest contracts and names in the NHL (Tavares 11M, Kane 10.5M, Toews 10.5M, Kopitar 10M, etc.) [5]. The writing is on the wall. The worst part is, it might be too late to address this issue. Management would have to fired and the new regime would have to convince the players to buy in to their vision. Both of those things would need to happen, not just one. For me personally, I think that firing our current management group would have more benefits than drawbacks at this point. As long as the new GM and staff are proficient, it would be a step forward for the organization. References [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/194991/nhl-franchise-value-of-the-vancouver-canucks-since-2006/ [2] https://thecanuckway.com/2020/10/13/canucks-jim-bennings-job-jeopardy-now/ [3] https://www.nhl.com/news/christopher-tanev-willing-to-be-patient-to-re-sign-in-vancouver/c-318980006 [4] https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/jim-benning-tried-to-put-out-the-tyler-toffoli-fire-but-just-made-everything-worse-3353610 [5] https://puckpedia.com/agent/pat-brisson

Don't do a full blown firesale, just sell the best 1-2 assets. Probably Pearson (2nd + mid pick or prospect) and Sutter (mid pick), both with retention. Podkolzin steps in to replace Pearson right away and run Gaudette at C for the rest of the year I guess. In the offseason use one or more picks (including the extra ones) to get out of a contract. That's where we'll see the highest return.

He's looking like he'll be able to hold down the 3rd pairing for the next little while. Maybe down the line he can hold down the 2nd pairing, but one step at a time. The next step is to use him more heavily on the PK like he was in the AHL and then eventually hop on PP2 as well. I've been happy that his lack of quickness hasn't gotten him exposed consistently. He's playing smart and limiting the fast chances against as much as one player can when playing with Myers. Definitely proving that he should be kept around. Hopefully we can find a partner for him who is fast and reliable.

Marchand - Crosby (C) - Bergeron (A) Huberdeau - McDavid - Point Tavares - MacKinnon - Barzal O'Reilly - Horvat - Stone Reilly - Makar Theodore - Pietrangelo Chabot - Weber (A) Price Hart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Marner, Scheifele, Stamkos, Lafreniere, Toews, Couturier, Suzuki Ekblad, Parayko, Ellis, Morrissey Kuemper, Blackwood

I'm not sure what you mean, I didn't mention Green at all. I would like Roussel gone as well, but I don't think it's practical unless he has positive value which is debatable.

I'm pretty close to this point as well. I've been patient with Virtanen the last 2 years or so hoping he would begin to take some steps, even if its at a slower pace than most would like. But I'm not going to sit and wait for him forever. At this point, I would trade him in the offseason. Chances are high that getting dealt could be his wake up call and he could flourish on another team, but I'm growing more and more convinced its not going to happen in Vancouver. I don't think Virtanen is a liability or anything, but I don't think he'll reach the level we need him to be at in order to be a strong, consistent contributor for us. We can find someone else to play on the 3rd line, its not an irreplaceable hole. There's nothing that Virtanen does that MacEwan can't with more intensity, compete and consistency. I'd move him in the offseason at this point.

Gaudette hasn't really impressed me at any point in the NHL yet and I'm not mad about him being scratched at all. Watching him play, it takes way too much effort and mental space for him to simply skate fast with the puck. He's not very efficient and constantly seems to be fighting the puck. When he's focusing so much on that, it takes away his ability to see the game around him. The thing is, his reads are also inconsistent even when he doesn't have to worry about handling the puck. He's fine in the offensive zone, but everywhere else his gaffes are noticeable. I distinctly remember one play against New Jersey last year where Gaudette got caught puck watching in the neutral zone and lost his man, who was wide open with speed and generated a dangerous chance against. Those little decisions that lead to defensive breakdowns can happen all over the ice and are much more apparent when you watch the game live. It sucks though because his effort level is there and he can obviously put up points. Getting 0.5PPG type contributions from the bottom-6 is great and valuable to keep around. It's important to have someone like that for the second powerplay especially. There aren't many players that can hammer a rolling puck accurately like he did in the first game of this season. But he has to contribute more consistently and in a more meaningful manner than just being a good shooter. I'm not sure he's improved enough over the last year and a half to prove that he is on that noticeable upward trajectory worthy of sticking around rather than being upgraded. I know about his stomach problem and addressing that should certainly help, but the clock is ticking in terms of cashing in on a youngish player with upside through trade. Being scratched does not help matters, but waiting until next year would be even worse.

How do people still get butthurt over this. Every team makes mistakes and every team get's trash talked by 30 other fanbases.