Aggressive offseason

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, aGENT said:

Yes really. The discussion wasn't who 'rebuilt better' or who's 'built better'. The discussion was 'how long'. 

 

The length between consistent playoff teams for rebuilding clubs is overwhelmingly +/- 10 years. 

The Avalanche actually did a deep and painful rebuild. The Canucks have re-tooled and as a result of it not working have drafted high to build a core. Both took very different approaches so its kind of hard to compare their timelines.

 

 

[alt kilgore]

21 hours ago, 24K PureCool said:

Jim is in a no win situation here.

 

Do nothing and let the bad contract run out will have the fanbase up in arms over 2 playoffs in 8 years.

 

Be aggressive and have the fanbase up in arms about mortgaging the future, cap space, no plan, asset management, etc. 

 

Unless the team wins the cup, not even a conference final will satisfy a good portion of the fanbase with complaints of one and done.

 

 

21 hours ago, Dazzle said:

This is very true.

 

I think the whole idea of 'rebuilding' wasn't really a popular idea among fans. Yet revisionist history would tell you that Benning "should've" done it. When Benning assumed this job, he was handcuffed with a whole lot of poor assets, though the memories of the cup loss was still relatively fresh among fans. Was there really an appetite to sell off fan favourite assets? I don't think so.

When Benning made a promise about a 'quick rebuild'/retool, he underestimated how poorly he'd do it. And it's not entirely his fault. He was given a crap sandwich, no matter what Gillis sympathizers think. There was nothing in the cupboards, and a clear declined core. If there's ever any argument to this, Edler is STILL around because Gillis was unable to develop a single defenseman from his time period. But Benning is responsible for making promises he couldn't keep.

 

Now he's shoe-horned himself into this situation. He absolutely has to guarantee a playoff entrance (which probably isn't that hard to to do). I don't know if Benning can do it with Green, but if the players support him, then maybe it's possible.

 

 

I realize this is from posts back on the first page, but come on. With all due respect, you guys are living in a revisionist bubble. 

PureCool,  there was a third option between do nothing and being overly aggressive, its being smart.  Being creative. Take advantage of other teams cap dilemmas. Doing something that no CDCer even thought about or didn't have the inside knowledge to know it was even possible.  That's why JB gets paid the big bucks.

 

Dazzle, to say that Jim's plan to turn the team around quickly failed because "he underestimated how poorly he'd do it" is hilarious. Are you serious?  I'll have to try that one the next time I get in trouble for mismanaging a multi million dollar company.

 

"I think the whole idea of 'rebuilding' wasn't really a popular idea among fans."

 

Mayor of wrongville.  Firstly, a GM should never base the need for a rebuild based on how popular it is among fans. On top of that, there was no more knowledgeable, timely, and willing a teams fan base was for a proper rebuild than in Jim's first few years.  He didn't take advantage of that.  But even IF it would have been unpopular, so what?  Tell that to Wally Buono. Was he worried about Geroy Simon's feelings when he was traded away just before his decline? Or fan's reaction?  In fact didn't Geroy even forgive that move, and come back later and be a part of the organization?  I'll bet that even if the Sedin's were told they would be shopped, and pressured to drop their NTCs at the time, they'd still have retained close ties to the city and returned as well.

 

You can't blame Gillis for everything.  His drafting was terrible under Delorme. He's admitted his biggest mistake was not cleaning house in the amateur drafting department.   But he was also running a team at the peak of a window in the last years of his term.  An actual scenario every GM would like to see played out.   Not a time to be hording draft picks over adding final pieces. Handing out NTCs and term was the price to pay to put a Cup-competitive team on the ice.

 

"Gillis was unable to develop a single defenseman from his time period."

 

Tanev says hi. But more to the point, what about Benning's time period?  Gillis was here for six years. Benning has been on the job for SEVEN years,....and counting.  Who on D has he developed?  Stecher? Joulevi?  Picking Mcavoy  or Sergachev over Olli, might have helped.

 

"But Benning is responsible for making promises he couldn't keep"  

YES!  Why wouldn't he be? Especially if it is not just a single time he's not met his own criteria, but a pattern.  And especially when dealing with such an important position on a Canadian hockey team for Canadian hockey fans.  And it goes beyond being responsible for those promises, it is more about his judgment in making those promises in the first place, and running the team from that base of bad judgment year after year, compounding the problem. 

 

And now we must rely on the one who's made the mess, to clean it up. I hope that works, I really do.  Doesn't look like the Aquilini's are going to add any oversight to him once again. No new voices. Lets face it, the Sedins, if hired, will be there for publicity to help save the team's image.  If Linden was shut out from any influence, as President, no way Henrik and Danny will get anywhere close to having any say in the Jim n Doug show. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[khay]

24 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Wat about hedman lol

Protection: Hedman, Segachev, Cernak

 

Foote is unprotected but TB makes a deal with Seattle so that Seattle takes McDonagh.

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The Avalanche actually did a deep and painful rebuild. The Canucks have re-tooled and as a result of it not working have drafted high to build a core. Both took very different approaches so its kind of hard to compare their timelines.

 

 

Sure (though not really).

 

Still not the discussion with the other poster.

Edited May 26, 2021 by aGENT

[mll]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

I'd happily take Foote instead.

If they are paying Seattle to pick the player of their choosing they can keep Foote if they wish.  They still need a full D-corps and he should remain cheap.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, mll said:

If they are paying Seattle to pick the player of their choosing they can keep Foote if they wish.  They still need a full D-corps and he should remain cheap.

Yeah, I get it mll. We're just spitballing here. You get that right? Threads like these, make me suspect you're a bot lol

 

I'm not attempting to suggest something like this is a shoe in with Tampa (or any other team). It's honestly more likely Jim isn't able to leverage the ED for a deal like this than he is. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be kicking tires on things like this and seeing what the potential cost would be. There is a deal that makes sense for Tampa. There's one that makes sense for Vancouver. If you can get those close or overlapping...maybe you can make a deal. Unlikely as it may appear.

[steviewonder20]

20 hours ago, Alflives said:

What do we do if Seattle takes Holtby?  Demko looks to be a solid number one, and he’s getting the big bucks to be that guy too.  Maybe Dipietro can be a legit backup?  He might have to be.  

I think that the Canucks would love for Seattle to take Holtby. I don't see them buying Holtby out over some of the bottom 6 anchor contracts and sending LE to the minors (which makes more sense financially than buying him out ).

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, iinatcc said:

Ok fair enough on the Avs but let's say they started rebuilding 2011 when they drafted Landeskog. In 3 years they won their division and bounced in 7 games in the 1st round and took a 3 year dip before being on the rise again. 

 

People compare that year they won their division to the Canucks year in the bubble. Except it took the Avs 3 years to get to that point and Vancouver took 6. 

 

So whoever the GM is for the Avs whatever they are doing their have progressed a much faster pace than Vancouver

In 2011 we went to the final.  The following year we won the presidents trophy for the second time in a row.   Last time COL was relevant was when Sakic and Forsberg were actually playing during the WCE era.   Comparing the two, we should get a bye until 2030. 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yeah, I get it mll. We're just spitballing here. You get that right? Threads like these, make me suspect you're a bot lol

 

I'm not attempting to suggest something like this is a shoe in with Tampa (or any other team). It's honestly more likely Jim isn't able to leverage the ED for a deal like this than he is. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be kicking tires on things like this and seeing what the potential cost would be. There is a deal that makes sense for Tampa. There's one that makes sense for Vancouver. If you can get those close or overlapping...maybe you can make a deal. Unlikely as it may appear.

we don't know what Seattle's approach will be, maybe they try to squeeze Tampa too hard and they do some deal with us. 

 

Everyone is talking about Tyler Johnson, but maybe Seatle doesn't want him either. Maybe Tampa protects 4 D and let the chips fall where they may on a F. 

[khay]

30 minutes ago, aGENT said:

So you find a happy medium where they feel there getting value of Woo + and keeping Foote (who we could also target/would be cheaper) without having to pay Seattle to take McDonagh.

 

Finding that happy medium seems hard. I'd say if we really want Cernak, we have to overpay.

 

It really depends on how they value Cernak but my feeling is that Cernak is worth at least a high to mid 1st rounder (no lower than 15th overall). A top 4RD with size at the ripe age of 23 is worth a lot.

 

And I'd say Foote is worth a prospect (Woo) + a 2nd rounder at most? Foote is still yet to be fully developed so he is worth quite a bit less than Cernak. 

 

Also, regardless of protecting Foote from Seattle, TB would be willing to give up an asset to get rid of some cap. And if they were to protect Foote from Seattle and to have Seattle take a specific player with high cap, TB is probably willing to pay their 1st rounder, probably around 24th overall pick or later depending on their playoff results.

 

I'd say their current plan would be to protect Hedman, Sergachev, and Cernak. Give up a 1st+  to keep Foote and have Seattle take say, Johnson. That way, they get to keep their D-core intact.

 

If they trade Cernak to us, they still need to give up an asset to Seattle so that Seattle takes Johnson. The only thing is that the asset they give up goes from a 1st+ to something lower.

 

I think that happy medium you are refereeing to is probably Woo + our 1st (9th overall). That way, they can still give up their 1st (at most) to Seattle to get rid of Johnson, keep Foote, and draft a great young prospect at #9 along with Woo to develop into maybe what Cernak is now.

 

I think it's a steep price but something worth considering if it's available.

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we don't know what Seattle's approach will be, maybe they try to squeeze Tampa too hard and they do some deal with us. 

 

Everyone is talking about Tyler Johnson, but maybe Seatle doesn't want him either. Maybe Tampa protects 4 D and let the chips fall where they may on a F. 

Exactly, we have so little real information. And again, it's probably more likely nothing happens. But the robotic answers kill me sometimes 

[JM_]

51 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

They have several playerd they dont want to lose and a few they really do want to lose.

 

To me, that suggests their cheapest option to make that happen is deal directly with Seattle. 

hmm, maybe. Don't forget Seattle has Detroit and NJ as competition for cap dumps too. Maybe their ask is more attractive. 

[aliboy]

Going by memory here, correct if wrong, but doesn't LE get one more bonus and then he's only owed $1M?? So, perhaps he gets his last bonus and then retires once he's told he won't be spending the season in Vancouver? One can hope. 

[JM_]

Just now, aGENT said:

Exactly, we have so little real information. And again, it's probably more likely nothing happens. But the robotic answers kill me sometimes 

yeah we don't really know what conversations are going on. I don't think teams are going to panic like they did with Vegas, I think they're going to try to position themselves to lose salary without doing a deal to lose assets. 

 

Would it really be that bad if Tampa protected 4 d, and let Seattle pick from Killorn, Gourde or Palat? Seattle can only take one. 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, aliboy said:

Going by memory here, correct if wrong, but doesn't LE get one more bonus and then he's only owed $1M?? So, perhaps he gets his last bonus and then retires once he's told he won't be spending the season in Vancouver? One can hope. 

nope, its 1 mil bonus, 3 mil salary. Sorry. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

1 hour ago, steviewonder20 said:

I think that the Canucks would love for Seattle to take Holtby. I don't see them buying Holtby out over some of the bottom 6 anchor contracts and sending LE to the minors (which makes more sense financially than buying him out ).

Biggest reason for Seattle not to take Holtby (other than he’s terrible) is why should they do us any favors?  What helps us (frees up cap space), makes us a tougher team they have to face in the division (of which Seattle is in).

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we don't know what Seattle's approach will be, maybe they try to squeeze Tampa too hard and they do some deal with us. 

 

Everyone is talking about Tyler Johnson, but maybe Seatle doesn't want him either. Maybe Tampa protects 4 D and let the chips fall where they may on a F. 

They are quite likely protecting 4 D.   No way Seattle is taking Tyler Johnson, or Killorn, not with Palat and Gourde available.   And no way Cernak or Foote is left exposed either that's a pipe armchair GM dream.    They will be keeping their cheap cap hits and protecting their core players. 

[Bertuzzipunch]

1 minute ago, IBatch said:

They are quite likely protecting 4 D.   No way Seattle is taking Tyler Johnson, or Killorn, not with Palat and Gourde available.   And no way Cernak or Foote is left exposed either that's a pipe armchair GM dream.    They will be keeping their cheap cap hits and protecting their core players. 

Yeah i agree, most likely seattle takes palat

[IBatch]

11 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Biggest reason for Seattle not to take Holtby (other than he’s terrible) is why should they do us any favors?  What helps us (frees up cap space), makes us a tougher team they have to face in the division (of which Seattle is in).

All the Seattle mock drafts available - none include Holtby, better starters and backups available and he's not easy to trade.   Francis has stated he's going to ice a team well below the cap to start.   Then make deals after and keep funds open for UFAs.   Most had them picking JV.   Now that's moved to Lind or Gads, which is what we should be expecting.   And out of any team in our division, why would they do us any favours - and what would they do any favours for any team in our division too? They will have room for 2 maybe 3 cap deals that's it.   Out of 30 teams (Vegas is exempt).  

 

Sure JB will try and make a deal for one of their extra D's if it makes sense, but not expecting any cap relief anymore.   It's too bad.     On the flip side it's not going to hurt us either as we won't be losing a roster player. 

[Me_]

The anxiety people are exerting over this matter is rather impressive.

Hockey, people. Hockey.

 

1st world problem.

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Me_