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

Rutherford Press Conference on Dec. 13, 2021.

Rate this topic


JamesB

Recommended Posts

Good synopsis James.

I only disagree with one thing.

I found it really boring and fell asleep twice.

Frankie going from one side to the other like a windshield wiper; all rooks -> all old guys; this is better.

Should find out who the new AGM is this week and later the GM. 

To complete this ass-backwards hiring restructure, coach and asst coach, then POHO, then AGM, then analytics and capologist, then GM.

Its all good; I'm good too; just sleepy.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Everything points to management wanting to build a long-term team. Spoke about the significant holes on the roster and the fact that the cap makes it difficult to fill them as it is. He mentioned the fact that the only significant deals he could make are dollar for dollar(one for one) and he didn't sound or appear to be too keen on that being a long-term solution.

 

Mentioned pieces already in place with Petey, Demko, Hughes. Wants more younger players in trades/on the roster as a part of this group moving forward

 

Not interested in trading high picks. Only interested in veterans short term if it makes sense with the group.

 

None of this sounds like a quick turnaround or that we will be buying.

 

We will likely be sellers at some point since that's how we will bring in more youngsters and clear cap in order to reshape the roster. This year or next year I can imagine. 

I don't like the term sellers.  Honestly, at this point I feel at least until this offseason we should be staying the course.  We've got a more complete team on paper than almost any other in the NHL.  We don't have the worldbeaters like the Edmonton's, Toronto's, and the Tampa's of the world.  I think our team could be modeled after Carolina, tons of good depth throughout with good coaching.  We don't quite have the depth of Carolina, but right now selling off some of our current team will be useless to making us better.  We've got one of the youngest cores.  The only older players on our team are fringe players that have no value to sell off like Travis Hamonic, Brandon Sutter, Luke Schenn, Tyler Myers (maybe he has some value, but he probably has more value to us than we could ever get in a trade).  OEL isn't going anywhere nor should he, he's key for our left side right now.  The next oldest guys are Tanner Pearson, JT Miller, Bo Horvat.  None of these guys are old (28 and younger), most likely to be in their primes for the next 5+ years during the time we should be contending anyway.  So there's no reason we should be selling off our roster.  Only reasonable thing I could see is a lateral move which does not make the squad better or worse.

 

The only reason we have been so bad is our penalty kill.  If we had even average special teams, we're a top 10 team in the league (just look at all the Canucks +/-, it's excellent which shows how good we are 5 on 5 especially with Demko).  If that gets better due to coaching, we got a good team on our hands that we should not be selling off under any circumstance.

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rindiculous said:

I don't like the term sellers.  Honestly, at this point I feel at least until this offseason we should be staying the course.  We've got a more complete team on paper than almost any other in the NHL.  We don't have the worldbeaters like the Edmonton's, Toronto's, and the Tampa's of the world.  I think our team could be modeled after Carolina, tons of good depth throughout with good coaching.  We don't quite have the depth of Carolina, but right now selling off some of our current team will be useless to making us better.  We've got one of the youngest cores.  The only older players on our team are fringe players that have no value to sell off like Travis Hamonic, Brandon Sutter, Luke Schenn, Tyler Myers (maybe he has some value, but he probably has more value to us than we could ever get in a trade).  OEL isn't going anywhere nor should he, he's key for our left side right now.  The next oldest guys are Tanner Pearson, JT Miller, Bo Horvat.  None of these guys are old (28 and younger), most likely to be in their primes for the next 5+ years during the time we should be contending anyway.  So there's no reason we should be selling off our roster.  Only reasonable thing I could see is a lateral move which does not make the squad better or worse.

 

The only reason we have been so bad is our penalty kill.  If we had even average special teams, we're a top 10 team in the league (just look at all the Canucks +/-, it's excellent which shows how good we are 5 on 5 especially with Demko).  If that gets better due to coaching, we got a good team on our hands that we should not be selling off under any circumstance.

That doesn't really align with what Rutherford was saying.

 

He sees holes on the roster that are difficult to fill with how we are cap-wise. Only mentioned a dollar for dollar deal as the only only real deal we could make right now which he didn't sound too keen on and doesn't align with his long-term vision.

 

Spoke highly about the young pieces already in place. Said he wants younger players that fit this age group and is willing to put together a group that can develop into a long-term successful one. Isn't willing to trade high picks.

 

We're potentially in for a reset. If not this year than next year.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds pretty clear that he is in the assessment stage right now and doesn't want to commit to what direction the team is going, which is perfectly fair. I was surprised by his comments about Green being a good coach but just reached an end to his tenure. I generally roll my eyes when others say that in the face of Bruce's current win streak with the same guys but he's made me question whether I am wrong. 

 

My only gripe was his defense of the Jack Johnson signing (which had to be bought out). That really was a terrible signing and I would've hope he'd reflect on it and see where he went wrong. I'd be fearful of him doing something similar with our team. His answer for why he got Gudbranson I think was fine.

Edited by AK_19
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

That doesn't really align with what Rutherford was saying.

 

He sees holes on the roster that are difficult to fill with how we are cap-wise. Only mentioned a dollar for dollar deal as the only only real deal we could make right now which he didn't sound too keen on and doesn't align with his long-term vision.

 

Spoke highly about the young pieces already in place. Said he wants younger players that fit this age group and is willing to put together a group that can develop into a long-term successful one. Isn't willing to trade high picks.

 

We're potentially in for a reset. If not this year than next year.

It does sound like Rutherford perceives the window to be further on the horizon rather than now (which is what Benning was trying to do).  If this is the case then it's going to be intriguing.

 

The emphasis on younger players, presumably on cheaper contracts, makes me wonder if Rutherford is looking at Demko and Hughes as the main pieces of a "veteran" core moving forward.  Pettersson is presumably also included with Demko and Hughes, but Rutherford was a bit more guarded in his comments about Pettersson (understandably - Pettersson is only now beginning to show signs of his previous level of play). 

 

If this is the case, then it feels like Miller is probably in an age + $ cohort that won't fit in with the perceived start of the team's window.  If we're looking 2-3 years out, then he'll already be in his early 30s and he's going to eat up a lot of cap room.  It was always possible that Miller would be traded, but the likelihood of that depended a lot on whether the new management team believes the window is now or later.  Garland's probably safe as he provides good value at his cap hit even if he's technically in an older age cohort.

 

This also leaves room to wonder about Horvat's future although it won't make any sense for the Canucks to move him out unless they at least receive a very good young C in return for him or someone else.  I assume Rutherford will take the position that he's stuck with OEL.

Edited by EternalCanuckFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched the entire interview.

gotta say I really like what he had to say. 
i like the answers

not looking to trade draft pick 

not looking to add 30+ year old players. 

If he makes trades he wants to get younger. 

likes the team but see it has holes and needs pieces 

take some time to see the team up close before making decisions. 


Good answers to the wall/gear dismissals 

FA made the call give JR the ability to change the culture with his guys that have no loyalties to previous regimes. 
 


Didnt say one time a stupid catch phrase “age gap” foundational” “ placeholder”

 

no fluff 

 

what a stupid question about Jake  Virtanen.


 

 


 

 

Edited by combover
  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Everything points to management wanting to build a long-term team. Spoke about the significant holes on the roster and the fact that the cap makes it difficult to fill them as it is. He mentioned the fact that the only significant deals he could make are dollar for dollar(one for one) and he didn't sound or appear to be too keen on that being a long-term solution.

 

Mentioned pieces already in place with Petey, Demko, Hughes. Wants more younger players in trades/on the roster as a part of this group moving forward

 

Not interested in trading high picks. Only interested in veterans short term if it makes sense with the group.

 

None of this sounds like a quick turnaround or that we will be buying.

 

We will likely be sellers at some point since that's how we will bring in more youngsters and clear cap in order to reshape the roster. This year or next year I can imagine. 

Look for guys like Pearson, Hamonic, Schenn and Chaisson to be moved during the deadline for picks depending on where we are in the standing. I see Rutherford moving sliw guys and replacing them with speedier players as he talked about our team speed being issues. We just have way too many slow players. Am thinking he will mould our team similar to teams that are speedy like Avs, Carolina, Vegas etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched part of the interview, I think we're on the right track with Rutherford.

 

I liked Benning up to a point, and was willing to give management a pass on last years' performance, based on Covid challenges within the team, but when we really floundered out of the gate and weren't turning the corner, I really felt like it was time for a fresh perspective in both coaching and upper management. I do, however, appreciate all Benning's work on the drafting side of the team; I feel he has set us up for long term success with his selections.

 

Generally what I gather from his interview, I had already said in a few other threads that I would be shocked if he made any trades before end of January, early February unless it was something that was a no brainer, or shuffling at the Abbotsford level.

 

In what he's saying about getting more, younger players, to me says, that he probably won't look to resign Miller, but will likely keep him as a deadline trade either this deadline or next, to set the team up with young assets necessary to build us to a cup run.

 

Personally, I don't think he will hire a new GM before January 1st, I think he will get to know the players and what he has here, before he finalizes a GM, so that he can make sure that the new GM's vision for the team, aligns with what he is seeing in the assets available to work with.

 

Going to be fun seeing how this team changes between now and the end of the season, if we start to lapse on performance, all bets are off for changes.

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

I forget if it was his interview or the one he did with Pit press where he said he wanted a fast team and we aren’t fast. Thought that was interesting and matches Boudreau’s general philosophy. 
Only thing I would have preferred to hear was big and fast. 

Well I think being a fast team will make us a better team and size should be secondary to that. If you have speed as a 2nd criteria then you are doing it wrong, just look at Avs  Carolina, Vegas etc. they all play a speedy game. I think size will be a factor thats looked at if the players we get check the box for speed and skill.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing that concerns me is that apparently Rutherford is really tight with Botterill and the rumours are he would like him as an assistant GM to keep his sphere of influence and a close eye on whoever the new GM is going to be.

 

Karmonos is in Buffalo now another guy who Rutherford has closely worked with in the past while Botterill is with the Kraken.

 

It's a wait and see from me.

 

Until we see who the new GM can't really comment on what direction and style he wants the team to have.

 

He has another interview at 4pm on Sportsnet 650 with Riccio,Shah,and Janda.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EternalCanuckFan said:

It does sound like Rutherford perceives the window to be further on the horizon rather than now (which is what Benning was trying to do).  If this is the case then it's going to be intriguing.

 

The emphasis on younger players, presumably on cheaper contracts, makes me wonder if Rutherford is looking at Demko and Hughes as the main pieces of a "veteran" core moving forward.  Pettersson is presumably also included with Demko and Hughes, but Rutherford was a bit more guarded in his comments about Pettersson (understandably - Pettersson is only now beginning to show signs of his previous level of play). 

 

If this is the case, then it feels like Miller is probably in an age + $ cohort that won't fit in with the perceived start of the team's window.  If we're looking 2-3 years out, then he'll already be in his early 30s and he's going to eat up a lot of cap room.  It was always possible that Miller would be traded, but the likelihood of that depended a lot on whether the new management team believes the window is now or later.  Garland's probably safe as he provides good value at his cap hit even if he's technically in an older age cohort.

 

This also leaves room to wonder about Horvat's future although it won't make any sense for the Canucks to move him out unless they at least receive a very good young C in return for him or someone else.  I assume Rutherford will take the position that he's stuck with OEL.

Yeah Miller would look like big piece that's the odd-man out.Garland and probably Dickinsen are safe due to age and contracts though I could probably part with Dickinsen. Probably try to keep Motte too if he's cheap. Horvat would be a huge decision but I think you keep him.  I'd even probably get rid of Boeser over Horvat especially considering Boeser's 7.5M qualifying offer.

 

Every other older guy you'd try to move. You can take cap back that expires in 1-2 years too in order to maximize return and have warm bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chip Kelly said:

Yeah I wanted to hear the Stan Smyl influence of harder to play against. Get guys who can skate and hit and agitate.

 

Burrows,Hansen,Kesler,Raffi Torres, Max Lapierre, Matt Cooke, Jarko Ruttu.

 

Looking for those classic Canuck pests.

They first need to fix that defense. You cant win a cup with Schenn, Bouroughs, Hunt all in your regular lineup. Am hoping he brings Devon Toews when his contract is up to replace Myers. Maybe try and trade for Pesce or Severson and really build a cup contending defensive core in front of a vezina caliber goalie like Demko. Adding a tough guy or a pest is like the last piece you add to a cup contending team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Yeah Miller would look like big piece that's the odd-man out.Garland and probably Dickinsen are safe due to age and contracts though I could probably part with Dickinsen. Probably try to keep Motte too if he's cheap. Horvat would be a huge decision but I think you keep him.  I'd even probably get rid of Boeser over Horvat especially considering Boeser's 7.5M qualifying offer.

 

Every other older guy you'd try to move. You can take cap back that expires in 1-2 years too in order to maximize return and have warm bodies.

As much as I like Miller I agree. He is your best trade chip.

 

Productive versatile forward with center and wing capabilities. Good size and surprising speed for a big body too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...