[Discussion] How Our Past Offseason Will Hurt Our Future

[Noble 6]

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

[BCNate]

100% fine with the past offseason.  I would have liked to see Toffoli back, but long term, the right decisions were made on the others.  We have some young guys who aren't quite ready to carry the load, that's fine, but bringing back 30 YO's on long term deals just to save a one off season would have been awful.  

[Toyotasfan]

I’m hoping there’s enough money coming off the books next season that we can move forward, this season was cap hell. I’m still convinced Tanev was the only irreplaceable player we lost , everything else is a step forward regardless of how the season is going. Schmidt will be better, Toffoli can’t score against other teams and his departure made room for Hoglander , Markstrom is getting old and Holtby is expansion fodder.

[GritGrinder]

29 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

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

What "more experienced coaches" are you talking about?

 

# of NHL games coached heading into the bubble

 

Craig Berube 295

Travis Green 233

Dean Evason 12

 

Berube has 60 more games coached and of course had the Cup run but neither he or obviously Evason are that much more experienced than Green. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by GritGrinder

[Convincing John]

They say you should never change more than 40% of the water in your fish aquarium because you’ll disrupt all the beneficial bacteria and chemistry you’ve built since your little fish were introduced into their new environment. It feels like we took too much water out and disrupted all the chemistry we built. At face value, water is water, but what we don’t see is bacteria and that’s what helps the fish thrive. They’ll survive and built new chemistry but it’s going to take time and it’s going to cause stress. I don’t know how else to explain it. Lol

Edited February 24, 2021 by Convincing John

[Nucker 67]

Bring back Markstrom and Toffoli

 

Let Tanev, Stecher and Leivo walk

 

Trade Demko (with Jake and Roussel)  - Re-sign Domingue cheap

 

...but hindsite is 20/20

Edited February 24, 2021 by NUCKER67

[goalie13]

I'm also OK with how the offseason went.  I would not have wanted any more albatross contracts dragging this team down and you cannot count on players taking a lower cap hit just to stay here.

[c00kies]

Toffoli was the only one I really wanted back. He's in his prime and a 4 year deal under 5M is great for a top 6 forward that fit in here (safer than signing a free agent with unknown chemisty).

[Ghostsof1915]

So say you were able to find a buyer for both Virtanen and Benn (I'd be loathe to give up either Benn or Gaudette personally).

You would have Toffoli for $4.5 for 4 years. 

Would that be fixing anything? Maybe?

What if no one wanted to pick up any Vancouver players in a straight trade for draft picks? 

Basically you are filling up one hole and replacing it with another one. Or that means that Chatfield/Brisebois/Rafferty would be getting game action. 

Would that fix the defensive gaffes? 

We still might be losing games, just the games might be closer with more offence. 

I agree with Cookies that Toffoli was the one guy I wanted to keep. 

I'm also not too sure about Schmidt. There's a bit of Jekyll and Hyde with him (Much like Jake).

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Ghostsof1915

[c00kies]

2 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

So say you were able to find a buyer for both Virtanen and Benn (I'd be loathe to give up either Benn or Gaudette personally).

You would have Toffoli for $4.5 for 4 years. 

Would that be fixing anything? Maybe?

What if no one wanted to pick up any Vancouver players in a straight trade for draft picks? 

Basically you are filling up one hole and replacing it with another one. Or that means that Chatfield/Brisebois/Rafferty would be getting game action. 

Would that fix the defensive gaffes? 

We still might be losing games, just the games might be closer with more offence. 

As great as Hoglander has been, having Toffoli on the team would have given us many more options in our top 6 (Boeser on 2nd line with Horvat, Pearson on 3rd line with Hoglander on the 2nd line or vice versa).

 

We lack variability, so when we struggle we're forced to stand pat and work through it or hope the one or two changes we can make will be sufficient. 

[Ghostsof1915]

3 minutes ago, c00kies said:

As great as Hoglander has been, having Toffoli on the team would have given us many more options in our top 6 (Boeser on 2nd line with Horvat, Pearson on 3rd line with Hoglander on the 2nd line or vice versa).

 

We lack variability, so when we struggle we're forced to stand pat and work through it or hope the one or two changes we can make will be sufficient. 

Still leaves the team dangerously thin on defence. And a team that struggles with defence to boot. 

[Noble 6]

1 hour ago, GritGrinder said:

What "more experienced coaches" are you talking about?

 

# of NHL games coached heading into the bubble

 

Craig Berube 295

Travis Green 233

Dean Evason 12

 

Berube has 60 more games coached and of course had the Cup run but neither he or obviously Evason are that much more experienced than Green. 

 

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. 

[Coconuts]

I was fine letting Markstrom walk, I don't like that contract and I'm glad we didn't give it to him. Yes, he bailed this team out in a big way last season but that wasn't sustainable long-term. When you need a goaltender to have what could have been a Vezina season (if he'd stayed healthy) just to squeak in you've got bigger problems. I was fine moving on to Demko, and Demko's arguably further along than Marky was at the same age. I mean, we slipped Marky down to Utica and helped him rebuild and rehabilitate his game, it's not as if we lost a great. When the team has played sound D in front of Demko we've had a chance to win more often than not. 

 

Stecher's quietly having a good season in Detroit despite Detroit's struggles, but I was fine moving on from him too. For a smaller guy he had a lot of fight in him, and he loved being here, but he looked overwhelmed in the bubble once the brand of hockey changed like it always does. 

 

I'd have liked to have kept Toffoli, but his isn't as big a loss as some make it out to be imo. We were scoring before we acquired him last season and continued to do so once he got hurt, during the playoffs even. We miss the depth he added, but we've got Hoglander looking like a keeper and Podz on the way. 

 

Tanev's the piece we probably miss most right now, and I was fine not giving him that contract. In retrospect maybe we should have prioritized him more, but what's done is done. I like Schimdt, I think he was a good add, it just happens that our three main coaches need to be turfed. Green's the best of the bunch, Baumer's garbage. I think our team plays better defensively under better caliber coaching. 

 

Leivo was a depth piece I'd admittedly have liked to have kept, but I don't view him as a huge loss. It's not as if he's blown Calgary away. 

 

I'm honestly surprised Fantenburg couldn't land an NHL job, he was rock solid for us. 

 

We've just gotta ride this season out and be smart with our cap is it comes off the books these next couple seasons. Maybe trade a couple guys like Sutter and Pearson away to acquire assets, though I'm not opposed to retaining either of them if the deal is manageable. There was always a good chance we took a step back this season, and that's exactly what's happened. The focus has to be on making sure we take steps forward next season. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Coconuts

[GritGrinder]

9 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

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 teams knew the territory better than Green?? You seem to be bouncing between "team" and "coach". Yes Berube coached St. Louis on a Cup run but he has marginally more experience than Green and I'm not sure Green outcoached him in the bubble. In terms of Vegas it was Gallant who coached them to the Finals and their 2nd year and it was Peter DeBoer in the bubble. And what exactly did Green do well as a coach against Vegas, he said "hey Thatcher go stand on your head for 4 games, play some of the best hockey of your career and try and save our season.."?

Edited February 24, 2021 by GritGrinder

[ImConfused]

Our future is bright considering we will have our first Stanley Cup coming this summer with Benning in charge and Green behind the bench

[Lancaster]

Toffoli and maybe Leivo if the price was right.

 

Tanev was a declining but he still deserved to be paid... thus wasn't part of the Canucks plan going forward.

Markstrom may be playing very well, but he's not going to get any better.  He's already 30+ so it's most likely downward from there.  Overall, he's still unproven in the post-season..... where Holtby (who has accomplished way more) is paid less, with lesser term and is also the same age.  

 

Stetcher would have been nice, but he would have required a pay increase for him to be qualified.  

[Noble 6]

7 minutes ago, GritGrinder said:

The teams knew the territory better than Green?? You seem to be bouncing between "team" and "coach". Yes Berube coached St. Louis on a Cup run but he has marginally more experience than Green and I'm not sure Green outcoached him in the bubble. In terms of Vegas it was Gallant who coached them to the Finals and their 2nd year and it was Peter DeBoer in the bubble. And what exactly did Green do well as a coach against Vegas, he said "hey Thatcher go stand on your head for 4 games, play some of the best hockey of your career and try and save our season.."?

 

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. 

[Noble 6]

24 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I was fine letting Markstrom walk, I don't like that contract and I'm glad we didn't give it to him. Yes, he bailed this team out in a big way last season but that wasn't sustainable long-term. When you need a goaltender to have what could have been a Vezina season (if he'd stayed healthy) just to squeak in you've got bigger problems. I was fine moving on to Demko, and Demko's arguably further along than Marky was at the same age. I mean, we slipped Marky down to Utica and helped him rebuild and rehabilitate his game, it's not as if we lost a great. When the team has played sound D in front of Demko we've had a chance to win more often than not. 

 

Stecher's quietly having a good season in Detroit despite Detroit's struggles, but I was fine moving on from him too. For a smaller guy he had a lot of fight in him, and he loved being here, but he looked overwhelmed in the bubble once the brand of hockey changed like it always does. 

 

I'd have liked to have kept Toffoli, but his isn't as big a loss as some make it out to be imo. We were scoring before we acquired him last season and continued to do so once he got hurt, during the playoffs even. We miss the depth he added, but we've got Hoglander looking like a keeper and Podz on the way. 

 

Tanev's the piece we probably miss most right now, and I was fine not giving him that contract. In retrospect maybe we should have prioritized him more, but what's done is done. I like Schimdt, I think he was a good add, it just happens that our three main coaches need to be turfed. Green's the best of the bunch, Baumer's garbage. I think our team plays better defensively under better caliber coaching. 

 

Leivo was a depth piece I'd admittedly have liked to have kept, but I don't view him as a huge loss. It's not as if he's blown Calgary away. 

 

I'm honestly surprised Fantenburg couldn't land an NHL job, he was rock solid for us. 

 

We've just gotta ride this season out and be smart with our cap is it comes off the books these next couple seasons. Maybe trade a couple guys like Sutter and Pearson away to acquire assets, though I'm not opposed to retaining either of them if the deal is manageable. There was always a good chance we took a step back this season, and that's exactly what's happened. The focus has to be on making sure we take steps forward next season. 

 

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? 

[Noble 6]

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 

[c00kies]

39 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Still leaves the team dangerously thin on defence. And a team that struggles with defence to boot. 

Yes, but at least there's the offense. Right now we are lacking everything, which gives us no identity, but if we had a deeper offense we could be a "we'll outscore you" team. 

 

I think we'd be better and we could focus on filling up the defense instead of more top 6 talent (and the defense).