Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

Yeah, I thought this would be the most unanimously agreed upon W for the organization in some time. Not sure why there’s people looking to find fault in this. 
 

We locked up for five years what Kevin Woodley calls the best goalie coach in the league. We should be happy. 

yeah even these guys found a way: https://canucksarmy.com/2021/06/10/top-bottom-canucks-deserve-credit-ian-clark-extension/

 

 

This level of commitment to goalie development here is actually something new for us. It has the chance to pay dividends for a very long time. 

 

Even Woodley calls it "progressive". 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Difference being you present yours as facts.

the "fact" that I'm excited about is that we have the chance to become a goalie factory vs a goalie graveyard. Thats kinda neat. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I don't see how that's possible when the Canucks treat their personnel so poorly.

 

:bigblush:

oh right I forget, this is Jimmest and his dimmest.

 

Its pretty neat, people were lauding Luongo's idea of a goalie development department, and now we actually have one. 

 

https://nhl.nbcsports.com/2020/12/08/florida-panthers-create-unique-goaltending-excellence-department-roberto-luongo/

 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The narrative from the media for several months was that the ownership was in a financial squeeze due to COVID. The ownership could not afford to pay Travis Green what he wanted. Ownership cut management and staff and the organization was trying to survive. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

You got that from a hamster hiding behind a coke bottle?

I took it as you getting ready to watch some debate. Similar to people posting the Michael Jackson eating popcorn gif. Might’ve misinterpreted it. 

  • Vintage 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

I took it as you getting ready to watch some debate. Similar to people posting the Michael Jackson eating popcorn gif. Might’ve misinterpreted it. 

Ah, I see. Fair enough. It probably was a play on that. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Well Boeser was back for the play ins so that is what helped us get into the playoffs.  If Toffoli wasn't around we may have lost 10 out of 10 games.  At the end of the day Toffoli was acquired to replace Boeser and help us with our playoff push.  He was going to be a UFA so in effect he was a rental and wasn't necessarily acquired to keep on a long term basis. 

 

At the time of the trade there was no COVID and there was talk the cap would go up in the millions, which would have helped us to re-sign some of our UFA's.  At the end of the day the cap stayed flat and we weren't able to re-sign anyone and Benning made a decision to trade for Schmidt to shore up the D and also qualify Virtanen instead of losing him for nothing which basically took up all the extra cap room we had and he never ended up even making an offer to Toffoli. 

 

Letting Markstrom walk worked out great as Demko is a stud and is now signed long term to a better contract than Markstrom.  Schmidt for Tanev was also a decent trade off as Schmidt has offensive upside which we haven't fully seen yet.  Letting go of Toffoli was the only downside to those 3 but at the end of the day we had Boeser as our #1 RW and Virtanen was coming off an 18 goal season so he was expected to step it up and play the #2 RW position which of course never happened.

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
  • RoughGame 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :gocan:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :gocan:

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.  

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Elias Pettersson
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by DeNiro
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...