[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates

[Alflives]

Just now, PistolPete13 said:

So happy that Clark is locked up.

Imagine if the Laffs swooped in and poached him.

It would mean that maybe their playoff suckage would come to an end. That would cause a huge crash in morale on CDC.

 

Crisis averted! 

I was more worried a team like Florida would have offered him a deal he couldn't refuse.  So glad we got him for five more years.  

[oldnews]

9 minutes ago, whysoserious said:

If we lost 10 out of 10 game we likely still qualify for the play ins. But, in any event we should avoid hypotheticals.  You can't justify the Toffoli trade by looking at how it looked at the time and then decree that Sergachev-Drouin trade was one of the worst in history. At the time, Drouin was coming off a 50 point season and Sergachev was still an unproven prospect. The result was a terrible trade for Montreal but at least they still got a few seasons of Drouin. The Canucks literally have nothing to show for the the Toffoli trade, it was objectively bad asset management. 

Drouin deal was terrible - at the time it was made = hindsight not necessary.

[whysoserious]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Drouin deal was terrible - at the time it was made = hindsight not necessary.

Without hindsight you don't see Sergachev developing into a top pairing defenseman, again he was still an unproven albeit highly rated prospect. You can even go back to the CDC post for the trade and see that by no means was it seen as terrible at the time. 

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, whysoserious said:

Without hindsight you don't see Sergachev developing into a top pairing defenseman, again he was still an unproven albeit highly rated prospect. You can even go back to the CDC post for the trade and see that by no means was it seen as terrible at the time. 

go ahead and go backt to the "CDC post" for the trade - some of us called it at the time.

Drouin was a mistake the Habs should have let Tampa live with.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, whysoserious said:

If we lost 10 out of 10 game we likely still qualify for the play ins. But, in any event we should avoid hypotheticals.  You can't justify the Toffoli trade by looking at how it looked at the time and then decree that Sergachev-Drouin trade was one of the worst in history. At the time, Drouin was coming off a 50 point season and Sergachev was still an unproven prospect. The result was a terrible trade for Montreal but at least they still got a few seasons of Drouin. The Canucks literally have nothing to show for the the Toffoli trade, it was objectively bad asset management. 

Toffoli was a rental. Do you understand how rentals work?  Sergachev for Drouin was a hockey trade.  A lopsided one at that. The Toffoli trade was made to give the Canucks a chance at making the playoffs with Boeser injured.  Teams trade for rentals all the time. You can argue the justification for Benning trading for a rental in that we weren’t a playoff contender but that’s what he did.  So the trades cannot even be compared as they were done for different purposes.  

 

No it wasn’t bad asset management as teams trade picks and prospects for rentals every year at the deadline.  The objective for a hockey team is to make the playoffs and do something once you get there. It’s not about collecting assets for years and years and missing the playoffs every year. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Elias Pettersson

[DIBdaQUIB]

2 hours ago, Hogs & Podz said:

Just listened to Ian Clark's interview.  Very candid, straight up guy for sure.  He mentioned that it looked as if he was moving on and was prepared for that.  Then mentions how the 'powers that be' made a last minute push to change that narrative.  After hearing that, I have a renewed respect for the ownership.  It obviously their call and shows that they see goaltending as the most important position.  That's music to my ears because I believe that to be true, even if there are examples where teams have won it all with just above average goaltending... But not the rule.  Anyway, when I look at the struggling Alberta teams, the Avs, Leafs not getting over that hump etc... Elite teams but not elite goaltending.  Remember the west coast express days? 

 

I'm happy that this organization put their priority in this department.  This gives us a legit chance to win the cup within these 5 years. 

If it was ownership that intervened to bring Clark back, does that not cause you concern about management? 

[Elias Pettersson]

11 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Read what I said again.

 

I said at the end of the day, the result was effectively the Canucks trading Toffoli, Madden, a 2nd, and Schaller (cap dump) for nothing beyond a handful of games.

 

Because thats what the Canucks ended up with due to mismanagement.

 

Long term assets traded for a guy they let walk after a handful of games. Contenders make those kinds of trades, not bubble at best teams. 

 

Say what you will about Madden. But Madden and a 2nd was worth more than a handful of games and could have been used much more effectively.

 

People say its no big deal Toffoli left or that he wouldnt have made a difference this past season. I disagree on both points but even if we accept that at face value, then how do you explain why Benning thought we were one Toffoli away from being a cup contender in the first place? He shouldnt have traded for him to begin with based on where the team is at. But once he did it only made sense if they kept him.

It’s called trading for a rental. Teams do it every year. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. The goal is to make the playoffs and win a few rounds and have a chance at a Cup.  That’s the objective in the NHL.  Not to collect draft picks and prospects every year and miss the playoffs. At some point you have to take a shot. That’s what Benning did.  If Toffoli was not injured in the playoffs maybe we beat Vegas and go to the semi final. That was the plan.

 

You can argue the merits of trading for a rental when you are not a Stanley Cup contender but that’s what Benning did.  Bergevin make a hockey trade.  Gave up on a young stud defenceman to get his next French superstar.  It backfired on him big time and the trade ended up being one of the worst in NHL history. 

[DeNiro]

16 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

If it was ownership that intervened to bring Clark back, does that not cause you concern about management? 

They were the ones likely holding this whole thing back.

 

My guess is they were hesitant to commit to the 5 years that he was looking for. Thankfully they came to their senses and made the right decision.

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by DeNiro

[DeNiro]

Do we know any details on the Shaw contract?

 

Id be curious to see if he was signed past Greens two year extension.

[JM_]

18 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

If it was ownership that intervened to bring Clark back, does that not cause you concern about management? 

no because Clarks deal goes beyond current management ones. Ownership has to deal with Clark if Jim isn't renewed, e.g. so I'm sure they wanted to see a solid plan and reasoning for a 5 year deal. 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the whole premise is dumb. If you listen to Clark's interview, its clear he wanted to be here and wanted to build something bigger. It was also clear from Bennings interview a couple of weeks back he was very confident something would be worked out.

 

Now we know.that "something" was a bigger, and pretty exciting, plan for an actual goalie development department. I don't think this point has been discussed enough, this is a new idea for the team. 

 

So yes, creating a new department and a 5 year deal took a while to hammer out. Colour me shocked. 

 

Whats funny is we have posters that are so heavily invested in years of Benning hate they can't admit when a good thing has happened. Its kinda pathetic. 

It kind of cuts both ways, though, Jimmy.

 

You also have many posters here (I’d say a greater number, when it comes to CDC, than the “haters”), who are so heavily invested in years of Benning love and defending this regime, that they can’t seem to admit when mistakes are made or when unwise or unnecessary risks being are taken.

 

If you listen to Clark today, it’s pretty clear that he did in fact have a deadline in his mind, the Canucks did miss that deadline, and Clark was preparing to move on. 
 

The Canucks came hard in the end, and they got it done.

 

It’s funny that today we’re seeing Kevin Woodley quotes in these threads and posters using Woodley as a source because he said something positive about management being “progressive.”

 

It’s not that long ago that many were calling Woodley a liar and “fake news,” because he was saying that the Canucks were risking losing Clark by waiting as long as they had.

 

And as it turns out, pretty much everything Woodley reported was, in fact, accurate.

 

Clark had a deadline. Clark had great belief in himself, what he was worth, and how he deserved to be treated. When the deadline passed, and nothing was getting done, Clark and his family started planning for the next chapter, leaving Vancouver, and working for another NHL team.

 

Woodley always said that Clark wanted to stay in Vancouver, loved living here, was happy in his role, had great relationships with the goalies, enjoyed the work he was doing, and wanted to continue here. If the Canucks had been willing to work out an extension earlier, it likely would have been a very easy and stress-free negotiation, and probably Clark would have accepted a simply roll-over of his official duties and title, with a stardard timeline, synchronized with the GM’s contract, and the two year term eventually given to the other coaches.

 

But after the Canucks waited, Woodley said (and quite a while back) that Clark would probably up his ask, and the Canucks would need to offer something like 5 years, and a larger role, with a new title, and more clearly defined responsibilities and control over the goaltending department, if Clark were to accept an extension this late.

 

And that’s exactly what Clark got.

 

I don’t know of anyone who thinks it’s a bad thing that Clark re-signed, is here for another 5 years, and is now Director of Goatending, and addition to head goalie coach. 
 

My position was always that the team should pay Clark whatever he wants and give him whatever role and title he asks for. I’m very happy with the extension.

 

But good results don’t necessarily mean good processes.

 

I think it was a mistake to make Clark wait, and one that could have cost the team dearly. Had they not been willing to step up with a big offer and give Clark everything he could possibly ask for, it’s quite possible he’d have walked.

 

And I said from day one that letting Clark walk would have been a brutal unforced error. I stand by that.

 

It didn’t happen, and I’m thankful. I give the team credit for getting it done. And I’m thrilled with the Clark extension.

But I don’t think I’m being a “hater” when I maintain that the team made the process much more difficult than it needed to be, and took on much greater risk than necessary.

 

It’s also funny how, back when there was legitimate uncertainty over whether or not Clark would be extended, there were several posters trying to bend the narrative is countless different ways that sought to shift the blame off of management, and place it firmly on Ian Clark. I saw posts about how Clark wasn’t happy here, how he wanted to live in the USA, how he wanted a new challenge, etc. And also posts where Clark was cast as a villain, his ego was too big, his demands too high, he was a whiner, he was “pissy” (yeah, somebody said it), and he was just being too difficult. It seemed like people were brainstorming the narrative, such that, if Clark left, they’d have a story ready that placed all the blame on Clark, and none on management or ownership.

 

I’m also not buying this new narrative that the reason Clark’s extension took this long was that they were working hard on creating the new goaltending department.

 

Clark himself has stated that his job hasn’t really changed, just his title, and the clarity of his role, responsibilities, and authority, within the organization.

 

So it’s not like they’ve been working to create a new department all season and it just took a long time to put everything together, and that’s why Clark’s extension took until the eleventh hour to get finalized.

 

Let’s not forgot that, just back in May, Benning’s job was under review, and it really wasn’t even clear if he would survive beyond this season.

 

(Remember that Benning, with 2 years left on his contract, was only told on May 18th of this year than he’d actually be returning next season.)

 

And let’s also not forget that Benning was basically not permitted to start negotiations until after ownership decided that he was coming back.

 

The coaching extensions and hirings came together fairly quickly. 
 

Ownership was waiting because they weren’t sure who they wanted back for 2021-22, both on the management and coaching side.

 

And for that reason, I give JB a pass, when it comes to the delays, because I’m almost certain Benning would have acted quicker (he even hinted at this several times), if ownership had actually empowered him to do so. But he wasn’t really given the green light until mid/late May, so that’s the main reason we waited.

 

With Clark, however, I think ownership should have recognized the value of a rather unique asset, and split the goaltending coach extension off from the decisions on the main coaching staff, and empowered Benning to make the deal much sooner.

 

I can understand why they waited on Green and the other coaching staff, and I have never really been critical of their process in that regard. Changes were needed (and I’ve been an absolute cheerleader when it comes to praising the new hires, in Shaw and Gustafson).

 

I’m really not a hater. People may disagree, but I try to be very fair in my criticisms. I think the Clark extension was a very good result from a pretty bad process, and I mostly blame ownership for that, since they basically took it out of Benning’s hands, for most of this season.

 

 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

It kind of cuts both ways, though, Jimmy.

 

You also have many posters here (I’d say a greater number, when it comes to CDC, than the “haters”), who are so heavily invested in years of Benning love and defending this regime, that they can’t seem to admit when mistakes are made or when unwise or unnecessary risks being are taken.

 

If you listen to Clark today, it’s pretty clear that he did in fact have a deadline in his mind, the Canucks did miss that deadline, and Clark was preparing to move on. 
 

The Canucks came hard in the end, and they got it done.

 

It’s funny that today we’re seeing Kevin Woodley quotes in these threads and posters using Woodley as a source because he said something positive about management being “progressive.”

 

It’s not that long ago that many were calling Woodley a liar and “fake news,” because he was saying that the Canucks were risking losing Clark by waiting as long as they had.

 

And as it turns out, pretty much everything Woodley reported was, in fact, accurate.

 

Clark had a deadline. Clark had great belief in himself, what he was worth, and how he deserved to be treated. When the deadline passed, and nothing was getting done, Clark and his family started planning for the next chapter, leaving Vancouver, and working for another NHL team.

 

Woodley always said that Clark wanted to stay in Vancouver, loved living here, was happy in his role, had great relationships with the goalies, enjoyed the work he was doing, and wanted to continue here. If the Canucks had been willing to work out an extension earlier, it likely would have been a very easy and stress-free negotiation, and probably Clark would have accepted a simply roll-over of his official duties and title, with a stardard timeline, synchronized with the GM’s contract, and the two year term eventually given to the other coaches.

 

But after the Canucks waited, Woodley said (and quite a while back) that Clark would probably up his ask, and the Canucks would need to offer something like 5 years, and a larger role, with a new title, and more clearly defined responsibilities and control over the goaltending department, if Clark were to accept an extension this late.

 

And that’s exactly what Clark got.

 

I don’t know of anyone who thinks it’s a bad thing that Clark re-signed, is here for another 5 years, and is now Director of Goatending, and addition to head goalie coach. 
 

My position was always that the team should pay Clark whatever he wants and give him whatever role and title he asks for. I’m very happy with the extension.

 

But good results don’t necessarily mean good processes.

 

I think it was a mistake to make Clark wait, and one that could have cost the team dearly. Had they not been willing to step up with a big offer and give Clark everything he could possibly ask for, it’s quite possible he’d have walked.

 

And I said from day one that letting Clark walk would have been a brutal unforced error. I stand by that.

 

It didn’t happen, and I’m thankful. I give the team credit for getting it done. And I’m thrilled with the Clark extension.

But I don’t think I’m being a “hater” when I maintain that the team made the process much more difficult than it needed to be, and took on much greater risk than necessary.

 

It’s also funny how, back when there was legitimate uncertainty over whether or not Clark would be extended, there were several posters trying to bend the narrative is countless different ways that sought to shift the blame off of management, and place it firmly on Ian Clark. I saw posts about how Clark wasn’t happy here, how he wanted to live in the USA, how he wanted a new challenge, etc. And also posts where Clark was cast as a villain, his ego was too big, his demands too high, he was a whiner, he was “pissy” (yeah, somebody said it), and he was just being too difficult. It seemed like people were brainstorming the narrative, such that, if Clark left, they’d have a story ready that placed all the blame on Clark, and none on management or ownership.

 

I’m also not buying this new narrative that the reason Clark’s extension took this long was that they were working hard on creating the new goaltending department.

 

Clark himself has stated that his job hasn’t really changed, just his title, and the clarity of his role, responsibilities, and authority, within the organization.

 

So it’s not like they’ve been working to create a new department all season and it just took a long time to put everything together, and that’s why Clark’s extension took until the eleventh hour to get finalized.

 

Let’s not forgot that, just back in May, Benning’s job was under review, and it really wasn’t even clear if he would survive beyond this season.

 

(Remember that Benning, with 2 years left on his contract, was only told on May 18th of this year than he’d actually be returning next season.)

 

And let’s also not forget that Benning was basically not permitted to start negotiations until after ownership decided that he was coming back.

 

The coaching extensions and hirings came together fairly quickly. 
 

Ownership was waiting because they weren’t sure who they wanted back for 2021-22, both on the management and coaching side.

 

And for that reason, I give JB a pass, when it comes to the delays, because I’m almost certain Benning would have acted quicker (he even hinted at this several times), if ownership had actually empowered him to do so. But he wasn’t really given the green light until mid/late May, so that’s the main reason we waited.

 

With Clark, however, I think ownership should have recognized the value of a rather unique asset, and split the goaltending coach extension off from the decisions on the main coaching staff, and empowered Benning to make the deal much sooner.

 

I can understand why they waited on Green and the other coaching staff, and I have never really been critical of their process in that regard. Changes were needed (and I’ve been an absolute cheerleader when it comes to praising the new hires, in Shaw and Gustafson).

 

I’m really not a hater. People may disagree, but I try to be very fair in my criticisms. I think the Clark extension was a very good result from a pretty bad process, and I mostly blame ownership for that, since they basically took it out of Benning’s hands, for most of this season.

 

 

 

thats all a very reasonable way to look at things. The only thing I'd disagree with, or maybe more accurately put some context on, is why ownership was waiting. We didn't know if there would be a season, and then if there was if it would include people in the stands. As soon as that became clear all of the management decisions have come pretty quickly. So thinking about it from an owners pov, if you dont know what your financial picture will look like its pretty hard to make commitments about extensions.

 

Jim would also have known Clarks position was to stay, and I do think some clarity around a 5 year deal would have been needed to convince ownership to agree to such a long deal.

 

The person I was referring to has a severe anti-Benning bent, it colours everything the guy posts and its tiresome. 

 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

thats all a very reasonable way to look at things. The only thing I'd disagree with, or maybe more accurately put some context on, is why ownership was waiting. We didn't know if there would be a season, and then if there was if it would include people in the stands. As soon as that became clear all of the management decisions have come pretty quickly. So thinking about it from an owners pov, if you dont know what your financial picture will look like its pretty hard to make commitments about extensions.

 

Jim would also have known Clarks position was to stay, and I do think some clarity around a 5 year deal would have been needed to convince ownership to agree to such a long deal.

 

The person I was referring to has a severe anti-Benning bent, it colours everything the guy posts and its tiresome. 

 

I suppose. Certainly, the pandemic threw a wrench into things and made for a very strange year, and one I hope we never see repeated in our lifetimes.

 

But there was always going to be a team next year, and they were willing to go ahead and do millions of dollars in player extensions, even though it’s much more common practice to leave players late, versus non-cap staff.

 

Like I said, waiting on Green and the staff made sense, as there was a need for review, and their performance wasn’t such that they should be guaranteed re-hires.

 

But Clark, for me, was always different. He’s world class. Unlikely we could ever do better. It just doesn’t make sense to me to play chicken with an asset like that. You lock them up, ASAP. And worry about the bottom line somewhere else.

 

Plus, while I’m sure Clark is very well compensated (probably even more so now), he’s nowhere near the salary of a Demko or even a Pearson, who they had no problem re-signing earlier than needed (obviously, Demko was a necessity, but I’d also put Clark in the same category, but Pearson, not so much ).

 

Anyway, just my take.

 

As for certain posters with anti-Benning bents, I’d say that cuts both ways too. And if I’m right about who I think you’re referring too, I actually find that poster’s arguments more well reasoned and evidence based than many of the worst offenders on the other side.

 

I try to stay in the middle, but with CDC being so firmly in the pro-Benning camp, and so many people with an almost MAGA level cultish support of this manager (I’ve truly never seen anything like it in my years as fan of this team), I tend to think we could use a few more “haters,” even if just to keep this place honest.

 

Just my opinion, of course, and flak jacket is going on, as I await the replies. 

[BlastPast]

Has it ever occurred to certain know-it-alls in here that the financial uncertainty surrounding the league played a role in the delay of getting some contractual things done ? Surely knowledge of things that will affect revenue forecasts is relevant to both sides understanding what constitutes a fair deal, right? Or maybe they did drag their heels; either way it is something to at least take into consideration.

[JM_]

20 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I suppose. Certainly, the pandemic threw a wrench into things and made for a very strange year, and one I hope we never see repeated in our lifetimes.

 

But there was always going to be a team next year, and they were willing to go ahead and do millions of dollars in player extensions, even though it’s much more common practice to leave players late, versus non-cap staff.

 

Like I said, waiting on Green and the staff made sense, as there was a need for review, and their performance wasn’t such that they should be guaranteed re-hires.

 

But Clark, for me, was always different. He’s world class. Unlikely we could ever do better. It just doesn’t make sense to me to play chicken with an asset like that. You lock them up, ASAP. And worry about the bottom line somewhere else.

 

Plus, while I’m sure Clark is very well compensated (probably even more so now), he’s nowhere near the salary of a Demko or even a Pearson, who they had no problem re-signing earlier than needed (obviously, Demko was a necessity, but I’d also put Clark in the same category, but Pearson, not so much ).

 

Anyway, just my take.

 

As for certain posters with anti-Benning bents, I’d say that cuts both ways too. And if I’m right about who I think you’re referring too, I actually find that poster’s arguments more well reasoned and evidence based than many of the worst offenders on the other side.

 

I try to stay in the middle, but with CDC being so firmly in the pro-Benning camp, and so many people with an almost MAGA level cultish support of this manager (I’ve truly never seen anything like it in my years as fan of this team), I tend to think we could use a few more “haters,” even if just to keep this place honest.

 

Just my opinion, of course, and flak jacket is going on, as I await the replies. 

thats funny, wouldn't it be MCGA? 

 

I don't see many of those tbh. I think the line is more around whether or not you see Jim's tenure as a "7 year" rebuild or two separate team building attempts, one to extend the Sedin's chances and then the actual rebuild. 

 

I also don't see Clark as Jims "failure" if we're going to label waiting his fault, thats clearly on ownership not Jim.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[SilentSam]

0n the topic of staff changes, I was Just wondering how Leafs fans feel after Shanahan moved Lou Lamoriello out a few years back.

I think Lou is still ahead of the game as it develops,

seems others , like the Leafs,  just wannabe

 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

33 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats funny, wouldn't it be MCGA? 

 

I don't see many of those tbh. I think the line is more around whether or not you see Jim's tenure as a "7 year" rebuild or two separate team building attempts, one to extend the Sedin's chances and then the actual rebuild. 

 

I also don't see Clark as Jims "failure" if we're going to label waiting his fault, thats clearly on ownership not Jim.

 

 

 

 

What is it they say? If you don’t think it’s a cult, you’re probably in the cult. 

 

I don’t mean you, Jimmy. There are just some posts and threads where things sometimes start to feel a bit culty to me.

 

And just for fun, I had a look at this article: https://blog.usejournal.com/10-signs-youre-probably-in-a-cult-1921eb5a3857

 

I’d say CDC hits on around 7/10, at least when it comes to some of the pro-Benning crowd.  
 

(All in fun, guys. I don’t begrudge anyone for their unwavering faith in Benning. I kind of envy it, much the same way I sometimes envy religious faith. It’s not my bag, but to each their own. Just so long as we all keep it civil, there’s room for haters, lovers, and everything in between. )

[King Heffy]

13 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

0n the topic of staff changes, I was Just wondering how Leafs fans feel after Shanahan moved Lou Lamoriello out a few years back.

I think Lou is still ahead of the game as it develops,

seems others , like the Leafs,  just wannabe

 

Mark Hunter also left at the same time, who also took a ton of experience along with him.

[bad alice french]

On 6/9/2021 at 1:56 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

Shaw worked in St. Louis and Columbus. Solid defensive systems implemented there that have worked quite well. It looks as though he might be the new defense coach as I don't think he's ever run or strategized a power play. 

 

Who, then is running the power play in place of Brown? 

The Twins?

[DeNiro]

No offense to powerplay coaches but I feel like a good powerplay is not that complicated and some coaches over think things.

The fundamentals are the same for every good powerplay.

 

Have a good face off man to win the draw. Work it to the point and have a strong point shot threat mixed with net front presence and two one time options that are constantly cycling the half wall.

 

Limit the amount of passing and always be focused on setting up a shot. Shouldn’t be more than a couple passes to get a good shooting option if done right.

 

Hopefully the next powerplay coach simplifies things for them.

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by DeNiro