Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

[aGENT]

9 minutes ago, appleboy said:

I hope this will be a down year. Not too down.  It would be for the best. Clean up the problem deals with time. Buying out LE gives up very little space. I think Jake will be gone. His deal is built for a buyout.  Holtby's contract is also but I bet he stays if not grabbed in ED.

Sign a couple of one year deals to fill a hole or two that the kids don't fill. Maybe actually try to acquire a pick or two at the TD this year. Give Trent and his staff a chance to adjust to the NHL.  ( I don't think they will pay Green)

 

Bring in a new management crew for 2022.

 

BUT, FOR GOD SAKES SIGN CLARK!

Yup. I think we'll be back to a bubble playoff team next season depending on injuries, luck etc. Likely picking around +/ 15 next, next year.

 

Buying out LE saves $2m in cap and the owner $1m overall while also spreading it over two years. Seems a no brainer.

 

Depending on what happens legally with Virtanen... His contract could simply be voided. But yes, a buyout is also an option.

 

I think it's a pretty solid chance Holtby gets claimed... We're not really exposing anything else of value or remotely approaching assured NHL level prospects. And the two prospects we're probably most worried about (Lind and Gadjovich) both have skating question marks on top of their NHL level question marks. If I'm SEA, not sure I'm taking a risk on either.

 

I hope we can work something out with Clark too. He's a fantastic goalie coach. That said, it's not a one sided negotiation. If he's dead set on going to help Hart regain his mojo in PHI or something similar, there's little the Canucks can do to change that.

[appleboy]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Buying out LE saves $2m in cap and the owner $1m overall while also spreading it over two years. Seems a no brainer.

I personally would focus on 2022. I wouldn't push any money into 22 that I didn't have to. Jakes buyout will only slide $500,000 into 2022.

 

Holtby and LE slide bigger chunks.

[DSVII]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

So the 'problem' is that Benning has traded for or drafted so many good players that we will have to make hard decisions on who to keep in a couple years?

 

See, I knew we agreed he's done a largely above average-good job! 

I think we have a different definition of the caliber of players that are currently taking up cap space that is driving our cap crunch here

[CanadianRugby]

On 5/18/2021 at 10:54 AM, oldnews said:

Good response. 

 

Your first step is reasonable enough - however, it's pretty much a shopping list type of plan = ie trading Burrows 'before losing value' would have required you deal him before the Tortorella misadventure.  He was worth literally nothing at that point - a significant contract with limiting clause, a 15 pt season.  Hypothetically, theoretically your idea makes sense - in context = it was a pipe dream.  He had negative market value.  The point of my question was to ask what you would have done in Linden/Benning's position - at the point they took over - in context.  That question is not as easy to answer as 'dump the veterans before they lose value'.  Most of them had already lost value.  In any event, even if I agree with you there's the reality that it aint as easy as that - the team would have had to spend assets to move some of them - an even worse departure into a rebuild than what they did.  Each of those cases, really, have to be taken on a one by one basis - they did move Bieksa,  Kesler, Garrison, Hansen, Burrows when it was possible/opportune but needless to say - the timeline did not - and really could not - coincide with what the 'tear down' tankdown element of the fanbase would have wanted.   What I'd like to see is a realistic play by play of the woulda/shoulda stuff - I think when the outspoken tankdown crew have to answer that, they ought to realize that it was nowhere near as simple as their one-liner 'solutions'.

 

I won't argue with your viewpoint on not bothering to fill the 'age gap'.  I think the facts were plain - the cupboards were empty - the team had next to nothing in terms of youth to insert into the lineup.  Whichever way we perceive that, there was an inevitable and significant gap between that stage, and the next, where the team would be integrating their own drafted and developed prospects - and getting to a point where there is a reasonable critical mass of youth - is no short term fix.  Whether 'stockpiling' for a season or two - or a protracted, measured approach is better is a matter of debate.  Whether the team was great at amateur scouting but poor at pro-scouting is a matter of debate.  There's truth to the fact that some of those moves ie Vey - did not work out.  There's also truth to the fact that some did - ie trading our prospects for other team's projects, sometimes did work out (ie Shinkaruk/Granlund).    It's debatable whether the team 'would have' had that many more hits outside the first round had they 'stockpiled' but we certainly won't know, not having taken that approach. Other teams that have #stockpiled have done so with abysmal results - however, as you point out, this team has drafted relatively well, so it's a fair viewpoint imo to have preferred they retain as many picks as possible.  I can agree with that, while at the same time preferring a Motte return over a 3rd or 4th round pick for Vanek - because I believe that acquiring prospects/players in their draft + years can yield advantages - the ability to track their development post-draft - and imo there is not a logical, significant gap between these two types of scouting.     Anyhow - no major difference on your point here except to say that it's not a categorical.

 

I agree that signing significant, long term contracts was not a signature rething move - and obviously moves like the LE signing have cost the team a much better replacement asset.  No point beating that dead horse - however at the same time, I don't disagree with doing so at a later stage - ie when they signed Myers, I think it made far more sense than at the LE stage - and further, a big, two way RHD is a much more critical asset imo than a veteran winger.  I'd also argue that acquiring a player like Miller, at that stage of his career, with that contract - was a no-brainer no matter how attached to draft picks a person is.  In fairness to Linden/Benning - moving the Sedins was never a realistic option - a full tear down was never going to be in the works - and decisions are not theirs alone to make - they don't hold the stakes/financial interests of the franchise, so there are inevitably a number of unknowns where the imperatives of that transition are concerned.  Some things we do know however - ie what the Tortorella experiment signalled - and the results - which is, in part, why I make a number of 'allowances' for the present management group.  But from a 'fan' standpoint - I don't disagree with your viewpoint, of avoiding deals like that - I just don't 'expect' to get what I want (I would have preferred a younger power forward signing if they were shopping for a Sedin winger, but that's all water under the bridge).  At the same time, as much as LE cost, the reality is that even he will be expiring at/before the young drafted core comes into their primes....so is it really worth the grief?   Is the rething a few years behind what people would have wanted?  How much time the the Tortorella departure cost us?  Not really on Lindenning imo.

 

The 'should have embraced a rebuild sooner thing - again - I'd have a similar answer to the first paragraph - it's an easy criticism - but it was also a pipe dream that would have required you purchase the franchise and put your millions at stake in those years of teardown.  If you'd take those financial losses, I'm all for you buying the team.

 

The 'supporting cast' being trash is another case by case discussion imo - as a one-liner it's a failed generalisation - and fails to explain how that trash supporting cast took the team to multiple playoff rounds.  If you believe that doing so was on the backs of the 20 yr olds alone, and dragged down by the trash - I think that's highly uninformed - and I think the results are obvious - when this team goes without that 'trash'.   The current group - 'supported' by a bunch of Boyd, Michaelis, etc - an entire bottom six of replacements - yields 'expected' results.  The difference between Hughes' performance with Tanev and without Tanev should also be another case in point that the supporting 'foundation' was not/is not in fact "trash".  But again, that's a huge can of worms that can't be oversimplified imo.  There are some of that 'trash' I'd sign all over again in a hearbeat, and some of them I didn't want from the moment they were signed = a case by case - that we don't need to go into (again) - most of it's been beaten to pulp on these boards.

 

But - a good discussion imo - I'm just not sure you've engaged in reality/context for much of it.  When you say you would have traded Burrows, for example, it's either a pipe dream, or you're referrring to a few years before Benning - the year before Tortorella - in which case you haven't really provided a valid criticism of Benning - you effectively have an issue with decision ownership made pre-dating Lindenning.  It may be a 'valid' point - but it doesn't effectively separate the shopping list from what was realistic at the outset of the present managment group's tenure.  I don't agree with a number of things management has done - but at the same time, make necessary allowances.

 

And for me, the bottom line of the #proper way forward, remains the underlying ability to draft and develop.  The team is - after a reasonable period in context, imo, reaching a critical mass of youth that we all wanted to see, regardless of our specific viewpoints.   That is what will sustain the franchise moving forward, what will give them cap flexibility, what will provide 'asset value' if they do decide to spend in opportune competitive circumstances.  That is the primary reason I'm not necessarily, categorically, in favour of a regime change.  The last thing I want to see is a management group come in and spend this asset base for their emerging window.   I want to see a continued, measured, 'conservative' approach that maintains the steady stream - not a bottleneck - but a steady stream of incoming prospects/youth.  That underlying ability has been shown imo by the present group - unless the case can be made that that specifically can be improved upon, I'm not interested in burning down this management group.  I couldn't care less about the results this season - I'm concerned with maintaining the youth trajectory - they made the correct call imo in setting that trajectory in line with Demko - and the rest of the still young emerging core.  They aren't near their primes yet, no matter what some highlight reel types believe - the future of this group is a few years away.  I'd rather see them continue on precisely this course - than have a guy come in and spend it for a "window".    People like to assume that 'change' will result in something better - that's only half the possibility - things can always get better, but they can also always get worse.  "Fire Benning" is not a plan - it's merely a reaction.  And wadr, ownerships 'plan' hasn't always been 'better' than this one.  People might also want to ask themselves - why has ownership stuck with the present group?  I doubt it's as simple as 'they are incompetent' - I think it's more likely because they signed off on what has been done - in a collaborative effort, a compromise.  A #proper-rebuild was, simply, never gonna happen.

I agree with some of that and disagree with some.  You and me have argued most of these things for years so I'm not going to get into it point by point.  I at least appreciate the effort at an actual debate and not throwing crap at each other.  I understand why you see things a certain way even if I don't see them the same way all the time. 

 

I used to like debating with you.. How much did we argue if you need high picks to rebuild, does losing ruin prospects, would Vancouver fans embrace a long rebuild?  But I think I'm just so done with Aqualini and Benning that I just don't care at this point.  Usually I'd be mad that we're getting loser points and lowering our pick, but this year I just don't care.  I think I'm an Ian Clark dismissal away from getting a Kraken jersey.  I still watch the games but my days of being a Canucks keyboard warrior are mostly over.  7 years of hating the owner and GM has withered my enjoyment of watching hockey away.

 

That said.  The original thing I predicted all the way back when Benning signed Miller & Vrbata instead of doing an immediate and "proper" rebuild, is that this team would end up middle of the pack.  IMO, that's happened.  Bottom 6 will be tougher to improve with more money going to our top players, same goes for defense.  So good luck to Benning or whoever replaces him in the future. 

 

But like I've always said.  I hope you're right and I'm wrong, because I want to see this team win a cup before I die.  I guess we'll see in year 9 of this Benning experiment.

[oldnews]

23 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

I agree with some of that and disagree with some.  You and me have argued most of these things for years so I'm not going to get into it point by point.  I at least appreciate the effort at an actual debate and not throwing crap at each other.  I understand why you see things a certain way even if I don't see them the same way all the time. 

 

I used to like debating with you.. How much did we argue if you need high picks to rebuild, does losing ruin prospects, would Vancouver fans embrace a long rebuild?  But I think I'm just so done with Aqualini and Benning that I just don't care at this point.  Usually I'd be mad that we're getting loser points and lowering our pick, but this year I just don't care.  I think I'm an Ian Clark dismissal away from getting a Kraken jersey.  I still watch the games but my days of being a Canucks keyboard warrior are mostly over.  7 years of hating the owner and GM has withered my enjoyment of watching hockey away.

 

That said.  The original thing I predicted all the way back when Benning signed Miller & Vrbata instead of doing an immediate and "proper" rebuild, is that this team would end up middle of the pack.  IMO, that's happened.  Bottom 6 will be tougher to improve with more money going to our top players, same goes for defense.  So good luck to Benning or whoever replaces him in the future. 

 

But like I've always said.  I hope you're right and I'm wrong, because I want to see this team win a cup before I die.  I guess we'll see in year 9 of this Benning experiment.

I think the sport was more enjoyable in the pre-social-media days.  Which is not to say that these boards are a complete waste of time, but unfortunately they tend to lead to a bunch of dysfunctional noise.

My take on a rething is different for sure - my points were that you do not need lottery picks/champions to build a contender (something Canucks fans should probably accept unless they're young enough to believe we will ever win a lottery...) - more ways than one to build a champion - and it's not losing that ruins prospects, it's failing to develop #properly that ruins prospects, ruining them in a losing 'culture' that does not play the game the 'right' way.  I think that's something Deadmonton may finally have solved in bringing Tippett in, but it was certainly not a short-term task - not surprised it didn't change overnight (and they're still ludicrously dependent upon two players....)  Fortunately for them, I think this is as good a season as there will ever be to try to ride a superstar through poor, inconsistent, exhausted fairly low quality hockey in general (but that's beside the point).

 

Wasn't a fan of the Miller signing - but I was wrong about that.  And further, it was inconsequential - as was Vrbata - as they have been long gone and the team continues to develop it's youth towards their primes - when this team may actually contend if things turn out as we hope.  I don't and never saw a short-cut - so I guess my expectations were lower than most, and my patience higher, because for me, there were obstacles from the get go that were predetermined to set the team back in time even further.  It was what it was - for me the prime criticism would not fall with the Linden or Benning era...

 

I can relate though. I hated the Keenan era - couldn't wait for that asshat to leave - and unfortunately he brought Messier with him.  Nowhere near loathed Tortorella as much - but saw literally no point in bringing him here - and it turned out worse than I expected....At least the present guys are "Canucks" I suppose - but the Linden departure - again - was unfortunate to say the least.

 

I like the youth though - always liked my 'foundation' guys (imo Malhotra is the prototype for this org. so I see why they value these types of players...) - and I want more youth drafted, which is the basis of my patience with the Benning era....so I make 'allowances'. 

Anyhow - cheers - hopefully next year is more like the previous.

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by oldnews

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, DSVII said:

I think we have a different definition of the caliber of players that are currently taking up cap space that is driving our cap crunch here

No, your post was clearly talking about a couple years from now. Not present day. 

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, appleboy said:

I personally would focus on 2022. I wouldn't push any money into 22 that I didn't have to. Jakes buyout will only slide $500,000 into 2022.

 

Holtby and LE slide bigger chunks.

Heck, even better if Eriksson finally mans up and just retires (not that I expect it). But $1m stretching in to 22 wouldn't be then end of the world IMO to finally close the book on that AWFUL contract.

[WeneedLumme]

18 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

We're transitioning to a very young team. There's talent at every position(to varying degrees).

 

Can't understand the gripers.

 

17 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Look again at our roster. Not sure of our exact average age but we arent actually a very young team at all. Nor will we be next year if, as expected, Edler, Sutter, and Hamonic are back.

 

We are younger than we were when Benning took over but it would be hard to be older.

When Benning took over, the average age of our core was early thirties, in decline and riddled with NMCs and NTCs.

 

Now our core is early twenties, loaded with players who can reasonably be expected to get better and better every year. With quality young players on ELCs joining in every year.

 

The age of the fillers and support players playing out their contracts while the young core ripens, is irrelevant.

[canuck73_3]

30 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

 

When Benning took over, the average age of our core was early thirties, in decline and riddled with NMCs and NTCs.

 

Now our core is early twenties, loaded with players who can reasonably be expected to get better and better every year. With quality young players on ELCs joining in every year.

 

The age of the fillers and support players playing out their contracts while the young core ripens, is irrelevant.

Even as little as Beagle and Edler off the team rapidly drops our teams “average age” no idea why that is a talking point beyond confirmation bias. 

[appleboy]

12 hours ago, aGENT said:

Heck, even better if Eriksson finally mans up and just retires (not that I expect it). But $1m stretching in to 22 wouldn't be then end of the world IMO to finally close the book on that AWFUL contract.

That contract should be copied and framed. Hang it on the wall where management now and in the future must look at it. Make them review it just before they sign any long term deals.  

[IBatch]

14 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

I agree with some of that and disagree with some.  You and me have argued most of these things for years so I'm not going to get into it point by point.  I at least appreciate the effort at an actual debate and not throwing crap at each other.  I understand why you see things a certain way even if I don't see them the same way all the time. 

 

I used to like debating with you.. How much did we argue if you need high picks to rebuild, does losing ruin prospects, would Vancouver fans embrace a long rebuild?  But I think I'm just so done with Aqualini and Benning that I just don't care at this point.  Usually I'd be mad that we're getting loser points and lowering our pick, but this year I just don't care.  I think I'm an Ian Clark dismissal away from getting a Kraken jersey.  I still watch the games but my days of being a Canucks keyboard warrior are mostly over.  7 years of hating the owner and GM has withered my enjoyment of watching hockey away.

 

That said.  The original thing I predicted all the way back when Benning signed Miller & Vrbata instead of doing an immediate and "proper" rebuild, is that this team would end up middle of the pack.  IMO, that's happened.  Bottom 6 will be tougher to improve with more money going to our top players, same goes for defense.  So good luck to Benning or whoever replaces him in the future. 

 

But like I've always said.  I hope you're right and I'm wrong, because I want to see this team win a cup before I die.  I guess we'll see in year 9 of this Benning experiment.

  Older fans have been through this and worse already.   80's teams got in because there was only 21 teams, most of our teams simply sucked back then, but in fairness our division was probably the toughest.   Why VAN and WNP constantly got pounded by EDM and mid decade CAL too.    Can't speak for all of the 80's and on fans (and don't include the first ten years as a kid either) but even the idea of switching to a different team is almost unthinkable - - heinous betrayal for me at this point.  I'd rather just quit watching hockey all together given how the games changed.

 

 

 Said early on a lot of newer fans won't have the stomach for what's going to happen next and your the second poster i've seen talk about switching to Seattle. Also pretty sure several posters on this site aren't Canuck fans and like to deliberately  troll us...hope your not under duress.  

 

Know i'm not the only displaced fan.   Can tell lots live in other provinces.   Never once did i think of cheering for the Leafs.   OTT eithe although i'm starting to join with fans and clap my hands when they play Boston and score.   If you can't handle JB and Aquaman then I think there is something else going on.   Sorry to hear that, no matter who took over this was going to always be a long time.   And two playoffs already happens to be a sh!t ton better then most rebuilding or bad teams since the cap era. 

[DSVII]

14 hours ago, aGENT said:

No, your post was clearly talking about a couple years from now. Not present day. 

Then I rephrase, I'm still skeptical of the caliber of players that Benning can bring in via UFA given $20 million in the upcoming 1-2 years. Here's hoping that our prospects today can make up a good chunk of our roster by then so we won't rely on UFA as much. 

[BPA]

2 minutes ago, DSVII said:

Then I rephrase, I'm still skeptical of the caliber of players that Benning can bring in via UFA given $20 million in the upcoming 1-2 years. Here's hoping that our prospects today can make up a good chunk of our roster by then so we won't rely on UFA as much. 

I can agree with that.

 

Draft well and develop well.  You'd get to know your prospects in and out cuz they'd be under a microscope.  The salary cap can be under control and maintain flexibility as you'd get constant incoming prospects at a cheaper rate.  Better than overpaying UFA for their play/stats on other teams.

 

I view as going into the UFA market/ trade deadline as a small add to boost a deep run into the playoffs.  Rather than trying to hit a home run at a higher cap hit.

[aGENT]

24 minutes ago, DSVII said:

Then I rephrase, I'm still skeptical of the caliber of players that Benning can bring in via UFA given $20 million in the upcoming 1-2 years. Here's hoping that our prospects today can make up a good chunk of our roster by then so we won't rely on UFA as much. 

That's pretty clearly the plan... Welcome aboard.

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, appleboy said:

That contract should be copied and framed. Hang it on the wall where management now and in the future must look at it. Make them review it just before they sign any long term deals.  

As should Buffalo with Okposo. Or the Lucic deal or the Skinner deal or...

[BPA]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

As should Buffalo with Okposo. Or the Lucic deal or the Skinner deal or...

Lol.

 

How to be a NHL GM book for dummies.

 

 

Hopefully they learn from their mistakes. 

[appleboy]

25 minutes ago, aGENT said:

As should Buffalo with Okposo. Or the Lucic deal or the Skinner deal or...

The Skinner contract is one that will keep giving for years to come.  Six more to come. LOL

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, appleboy said:

The Skinner contract is one that will keep giving for years to come.  Six more to come. LOL

Yeah that one might take the cake.

[appleboy]

The teams that are continually producing their own talent usually avoid those kind of issues. You could be in a position to move those players out for assets before they start to decline. 

[DSVII]

50 minutes ago, aGENT said:

That's pretty clearly the plan... Welcome aboard.

I've been on this plan since 2016.

 

It's the operator of this plan and his penchant for delaying/sabotaging this plan with above market value UFA signings Eriksson, Baerschi, Del Zotto, Gagner, Beagle, Gudbranson and not having the patience for letting prospects mature (Forsling, McCann, Madden) that I'm concerned about.

 

The fire will be under Jim Benning's seat next season. I wouldn't put it above him to trade another budding prospect for an NHL regular if it means getting to the playoffs, even if said NHL regular is not part of the long term plans of this team. 

 

We have different barometers when it comes to player evaluation. So let's see if this can actually translate to more winning seasons. We can only praise the 'potential' of this team for so long. 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by DSVII