[Report] Canucks name Patrik Allvin as GM

[combover]

21 minutes ago, IBatch said:

How many boobs that voted this is a good hire will come out and admit they were also the ones that kept hammering the last management cycle for having little or no experience?   And how many that said no are still stuck with JB - maybe because they like him still, maybe because well at 8 years he's got a lot more experience then how do you spell Allvin again? 

I don’t mind this hire. 
the difference is this is more of a committee jr has more than enough  experience to compensate for the inexperience. 
not the case last time. 

JBs ego got in the way he wanted to do everything he stunk at delegating look at the group JR has hired  well respected professionals from different backgrounds including scouting cap, management.
JR even said the GM is in  title only because everyone will have a voice .

A far cry from an inexperienced GM and president pretending to know better regardless of what pathetic excuse you are reliving.

aren’t you the one who said to let it go about JB yet here you are calling people names because they liked the hire….huh 

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I wouldn't say that he hurt me, but if someone was offering a course in dealing with trauma, I might just take it.

For the record, I'm not saying don't be concerned. That's fine. I'm just saying to question why you're concerned. If you just assume the worst are you just causing yourself more trauma in the end?

 

None of what I've said was meant as an attack, it's more to get you to think and keep an open mind, which I think is a lot more healthier than just assuming it's a bad hire.

[48MPHSlapShot]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

But you, yourself have also acknowledged there is a lack of information.

Plus I explained why there is a lack of information. It's not an assumption:

So, no. I'm not making as assumption. There is a lack of information as there should be as most things are behind closed doors.

I acknowledged that there MAY be more information, hence my usage of the word "if". You're assuming that there is information available that would make it more apparent why Allvin was our guy. I'm simply not taking into consideration hypothetical information that may or may not exist and instead basing my opinion, which is privy to change, on what information we have.

[King Heffy]

15 minutes ago, Provost said:

Did he forget how to coach after the playoff bubble when the team was the talk of the league for how hard they worked and the style they played?  Green has a great reputation around the game.  I would lay money on him getting another coaching gig before Benning is a GM again.

Maybe dropping your best shot suppressing defencemen two years running actually hurts your chances of success?  Stecher and Tanev one year and then Schmidt and Edler the next with no replacements?  Former players who pay close attention like Jannik Hansen have laid it out that the guys left just don't know how to do it... how to get into lanes, block shots, and be puck magnets.

If our roster isn't having success  under a succession of coaches, including Boudreau who I think has the 1st or 2nd winningest regular season record in history with different teams... then it is pretty fair to look at the roster and not the coaching staff.  Rutherford has echoed the same thing, that the team needs a lot of work.

Name one aspect of Green's job that he performed to an acceptable standard over his tenure here.  Just because there were roster issues does not automatically mean he wasn't a huge part of the problem.

[The Lock]

Just now, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I acknowledged that there MAY be more information, hence my usage of the word "if". You're assuming that there is information available that would make it more apparent why Allvin was our guy. I'm simply not taking into consideration hypothetical information that may or may not exist and instead basing my opinion, which is privy to change, on what information we have.

I'm not saying to take in hypothetical information. I'm saying to consider there's a lack of information.

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

37 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

...I really want to be excited about this hire but he's a scout with an awful scouting record in the past five years. I get that the Pens traded a lot of picks but I mean he's really got maybe 1 NHL player in last 5 drafts (2021 aside, too early to tell). On average one should get 2 NHL players a draft. I get that he had a better record previously but I certainly put more weight on more recent drafting, I'm sure there have been significant changes to drafting since that time and it doesn't appear he's kept up. 

If you take the last four drafts by the Benning managed Canucks, remove every top-50 pick except 2019, and then further pare things down to a grand total of 19 picks (2018-2021), you get something that approaches what Allvin was given to work with, as Pittsburgh’s director of amateur scouting.

 

Basically, you have a miss by the Pens (and several other teams) on Höglander. Pittsburgh drafted Samuel Poulin at #21 in 2019 (whose development has been a little slow, but most analysts still see him as having middle-six NHL potential). And then a group of prospects that stacks up decently enough against what Vancouver drafted.

 

Honestly, pick for pick, I’m not sure who did better from 2018-2021, Vancouver or Pittsburgh. Too early to tell, in most cases. Take away the Canucks’ three draft hits in the top-50 (Hughes, Hogs, and Pod), and Vancouver has a grand total of zero NHL games to-date from their 23 (remaining) draft picks during that period.

Edited January 26, 2022 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[Outsiders]

Sounds like they are going to try and gain cap space (maybe to then use this to there advantage, if another team is cap tight)

Really excited to see what this group can do. Although I am worried about Boeser and Miller. I think both could be traded for young defensemen and players.

Next few months should be interesting but I believe in this new regime.

[48MPHSlapShot]

Just now, The Lock said:

I'm not saying to take in hypothetical information. I'm saying to consider there's a lack of information.

Until said information is made available, we can only go on what we have.

[The Lock]

Just now, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Until said information is made available, we can only go on what we have.

You're not wrong there, but if you're making a decision about not liking the hire just based on "what we have" and before any transaction here, my question to you is simply this:

 

Why?

[Drakrami]

Not sure I like this hiring... Been 2017 amature scout director since 2017, and Penguins has not drafted any NHL caliber player since 2017... 

 

And the Penguins could easily compete for the cup this year, so basically he is giving up a chance at the cup again to be Vancouver's GM. Not sure I like that too much either. 

 

 

[khay]

1 hour ago, Pears said:

Both would get us pretty good returns and I’d hate to see both go but if it looks like they won’t re-sign then it is best to get something for them. I’m just glad we have something that at least resembles a plan. 

 

Another point to consider: Imagine how enticing Miller would be if we retained 50%. A team would be getting a bonafide top six forward, who can play anywhere in the lineup, for $2.10M and they’d get two playoff runs out of him. To me that would be worth the price it would take to get him. 

Retaining 50% on Miller sounds like a good idea if it gets us another 1st or good prospect. Whatever to expedite the retool.

 

I think if Boudreau had this team from the beginning, it's a playoff team. 

 

But it's not a cup winning roster. 

 

 

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

You're not wrong there, but if you're making a decision about not liking the hire just based on "what we have" and before any transaction here, my question to you is simply this:

 

Why?

Because the information we do have doesn't give me confidence. If we had the same amount of information available to us, but the scouting departments under Allvin had been more successful, I would like the hire a lot more.

[250Integra]

Just now, Drakrami said:

Not sure I like this hiring... Been 2017 amature scout director since 2017, and Penguins has not drafted any NHL caliber player since 2017... 

 

And the Penguins could easily compete for the cup this year, so basically he is giving up a chance at the cup again to be Vancouver's GM. Not sure I like that too much either. 

 

 

What's not to like? Are you thinking he's only coming here because he doesn't want to miss out on an opportunity? I think he clearly believes he has the confidence and ability to help run a team in their quest for a Stanley Cup as well, evening foregoing a more probable cup to add to his resume to do so.

[Gawdzukes]

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

If you take the last four drafts by the Benning managed Canucks, remove every top-50 pick except 2019, and then further pare things down to a grand total of 19 picks (2018-2021), you get something that approaches what Allvin was given to work with, as Pittsburgh’s director of amateur scouting.

 

Basically, you have a miss by the Pens (and several other teams) on Höglander. Pittsburgh drafted Samuel Poulin at #21 in 2019 (whose development has been a little slow, but most analysts still see him as having middle-six NHL potential). And then a group of prospects that stacks up decently enough against what Vancouver drafted.

 

Honestly, pick for pick, I’m not sure who did better from 2018-2021, Vancouver or Pittsburgh. Too early to tell, in most cases. Take away the Canucks’ three top-50 picks (Hughes, Hogs, and Pod), and Vancouver has a grand total of zero NHL games to-date from their 23 (remaining) draft picks during that period.

Nicely said Sid. Completely different situations and sometimes people don't realize how much of a crap shoot they are comparatively. One or two picks hit and your results are dramatically better. Most picks don't make it and a great percentage are top 50 or higher. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the scouts (as compared to Director) more heavily relied on later in the draft as well?

[khay]

1 hour ago, Canuckfanforlife82 said:

When has a retool ever worked? We always hear about these retools but it just sounds like another shortcut. We just can’t take shortcuts anymore. Wastes so much time. Build through the draft, build through the draft, build through the draft. This is the way to go. There is no easy fix people. This is it. Get rid of that dead cap space somehow. So much money spent on players who don’t do much.

Retool works a lot better than a rebuild surprisingly. Rebuilds actually fail more often than not.

 

To me, you do a retool if you have young top end pieces already on your roster, which we do: Hughes, Demko, and Petey. Petey is debatable now but at the very least, he will be a scoring winger if he doesn't make it as an elite two-way centerman.

 

We also have young supplementary pieces up front. Garland and Horvat are in mid 20's. Podz and Hogz are in their early 20's.

 

But we don't got another young RD in our core. We also lack LWs and Cs.

 

Trade Miller to fill out RD and C via prospects + draft picks. Trade Boeser to fill out LW and/or C via prospects or draft picks.

 

You only do a rebuild if you've got nothing on your roster under 25. 

 

[Canuckfanforlife82]

4 minutes ago, khay said:

Retool works a lot better than a rebuild surprisingly. Rebuilds actually fail more often than not.

 

To me, you do a retool if you have young top end pieces already on your roster, which we do: Hughes, Demko, and Petey. Petey is debatable now but at the very least, he will be a scoring winger if he doesn't make it as an elite two-way centerman.

 

We also have young supplementary pieces up front. Garland and Horvat are in mid 20's. Podz and Hogz are in their early 20's.

 

But we don't got another young RD in our core. We also lack LWs and Cs.

 

Trade Miller to fill out RD and C via prospects + draft picks. Trade Boeser to fill out LW and/or C via prospects or draft picks.

 

You only do a rebuild if you've got nothing on your roster under 25. 

 

Our cap is a big problem right now.

[48MPHSlapShot]

2 minutes ago, khay said:

Retool works a lot better than a rebuild surprisingly. Rebuilds actually fail more often than not.

 

To me, you do a retool if you have young top end pieces already on your roster, which we do: Hughes, Demko, and Petey. Petey is debatable now but at the very least, he will be a scoring winger if he doesn't make it as an elite two-way centerman.

 

We also have young supplementary pieces up front. Garland and Horvat are in mid 20's. Podz and Hogz are in their early 20's.

 

But we don't got another young RD in our core. We also lack LWs and Cs.

 

Trade Miller to fill out RD and C via prospects + draft picks. Trade Boeser to fill out LW and/or C via prospects or draft picks.

 

You only do a rebuild if you've got nothing on your roster under 25. 

 

It gets to a point where the difference between a retool and a rebuild can be seen as splitting hairs, and I think we're right on the cusp of that. Does a rebuild mean that every player on your team has to get moved? Does a retool mean that your entire core has to remain? 

 

At what point does it become an argument of semantics?

[Gurn]

27 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

Not sure I like this hiring... Been 2017 amature scout director since 2017, and Penguins has not drafted any NHL caliber player since 2017... 

 

 

 

 

Calen Addison, drafted 2018  rnd 2, #53, over all- now plays in the Wild organization, has 12 games so far between last season and this.

looks like 3 or 4 others were with the Pens-but did not play at the beginning of the year.

https://hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00007475.html#:~:text= 2021 Entry , D 31 more rows

Edited January 26, 2022 by gurn

[Gawdzukes]

14 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

Not sure I like this hiring... Been 2017 amature scout director since 2017, and Penguins has not drafted any NHL caliber player since 2017... 

 

And the Penguins could easily compete for the cup this year, so basically he is giving up a chance at the cup again to be Vancouver's GM. Not sure I like that too much either. 

 

 

I did want to mention/remind people he's actually been hired as the GM, not the Director of Amateur Scouting. We don't know who that will be or how much of Vancouver's scouting staff will be retained. We also don't know how involved he'll be in actually selecting the players either. He'll be busy with a lot of other stuff too.

[Jester13]

18 hours ago, Slegr said:

Looks like Canucks have gone All-vin on this one.

Not many people appreciate good puns, and I'm sure there were at least a few who didn't like yours, but All-vindicate you by saying I thoroughly enjoyed it