Is Boudreau coming back?

[CanuckleHorse]

On 4/1/2022 at 2:17 PM, Warhippy said:

I'd be hard pressed not to see him brought back.  Boudreau for a full season to start this year has this team in the playoffs almost without question.

If he doesn’t want to come back I hope his assistant Scotty stays on as our head coach.

[Ballisticsports.]

4 hours ago, Coconuts said:

I'd be perfectly alright with Maurice, I love what Winnipeg's done since they moved back. I like how they're built, I like how they play. He's also only 55, so he could be viewed as a long term option than 67 year old Boudreau. 

 

I like Bruce, I advocated for hiring him before Green was fired, but part of steering the ship for Rutherford is being objective and not letting his personal friendship with Bruce influence whether he's the guy or not. 

 

Are we likely to be a contender later than sooner? I'm of that opinion, so I see the benefit of going with a coach who's more likely to be coaching 5-6 years from now. 

 

If Bruce is back that's fine, I like Bruce, but I'm clearly not as attached to that concept as others. 

I agree with you (except i am not too familiar with Ma(rice style and player acceptance) and that we will be a contender later than sooner  as well, and that it didn't have to be that way (I think we set ourselves back 2 years at least)

We weren't drafting guys that could play on the 2nd 3rd and 4th lines (even with high 2nd and 3rd round picks) and were overvaluing/outbidding others to have 4th liners sit (Playoff teams are built from goalie out- we had the goalies, some good forwards but spent TOP money and picks  on BOTTOM forwards rather than d men)

Even last summer I felt the trade was one to make the team better for the short term, but not for the future and now we have to unravel that misstep and hopefully find buyers for our assets without giving up more to get rid of them like in the past (what are the chances we can break even unloading them all? Even if one could from the time we signed them to selling them, says how far you set yourself back by not taking someone to groom in that time)

 

I like Bruce too and will support and look forward to whatever management does for now, but i know it could be 3-4 years of more patience

Giving a coach only a 1-2 year term that coach will be looking to dress veterans to give him the best chance to win

(It might not have hurt Hogs and Pods to have played heaps of time playing the Canucks system in the minors and future drafted players)

I think a coach will be given 3 years min (with management making the 3rd year the deciding factor on how the team is progressing

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I agree with you (except i am not too familiar with Ma(rice style and player acceptance) and that we will be a contender later than sooner  as well, and that it didn't have to be that way (I think we set ourselves back 2 years at least)

We weren't drafting guys that could play on the 2nd 3rd and 4th lines (even with high 2nd and 3rd round picks) and were overvaluing/outbidding others to have 4th liners sit (Playoff teams are built from goalie out- we had the goalies, some good forwards but spent TOP money and picks  on BOTTOM forwards rather than d men)

Even last summer I felt the trade was one to make the team better for the short term, but not for the future and now we have to unravel that misstep and hopefully find buyers for our assets without giving up more to get rid of them like in the past (what are the chances we can break even unloading them all? Even if one could from the time we signed them to selling them, says how far you set yourself back by not taking someone to groom in that time)

 

I like Bruce too and will support and look forward to whatever management does for now, but i know it could be 3-4 years of more patience

Giving a coach only a 1-2 year term that coach will be looking to dress veterans to give him the best chance to win

(It might not have hurt Hogs and Pods to have played heaps of time playing the Canucks system in the minors and future drafted players)

I think a coach will be given 3 years min (with management making the 3rd year the deciding factor on how the team is progressing

Exactly.  Keeping Bruce is a move with a short term plan.  It’s the same plan as extending Miller.   If we keep Bruce and tend Miller (I think this is exactly what we do) then our owner wants to try and get into the playoffs now and has given up on the long term goal of being a consistently good team.  

[Coconuts]

44 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I agree with you (except i am not too familiar with Ma(rice style and player acceptance) and that we will be a contender later than sooner  as well, and that it didn't have to be that way (I think we set ourselves back 2 years at least)

We weren't drafting guys that could play on the 2nd 3rd and 4th lines (even with high 2nd and 3rd round picks) and were overvaluing/outbidding others to have 4th liners sit (Playoff teams are built from goalie out- we had the goalies, some good forwards but spent TOP money and picks  on BOTTOM forwards rather than d men)

Even last summer I felt the trade was one to make the team better for the short term, but not for the future and now we have to unravel that misstep and hopefully find buyers for our assets without giving up more to get rid of them like in the past (what are the chances we can break even unloading them all? Even if one could from the time we signed them to selling them, says how far you set yourself back by not taking someone to groom in that time)

 

I like Bruce too and will support and look forward to whatever management does for now, but i know it could be 3-4 years of more patience

Giving a coach only a 1-2 year term that coach will be looking to dress veterans to give him the best chance to win

(It might not have hurt Hogs and Pods to have played heaps of time playing the Canucks system in the minors and future drafted players)

I think a coach will be given 3 years min (with management making the 3rd year the deciding factor on how the team is progressing

Yeah, our inability to get hits with picks and to get drafted players into the lineup has made it so that we have to slot in players via ufa or trade. In retrospect I question whether acquiring OEL and Garland was the right move, we were so close to having cap flex. Just had to ride out another season. I'm not a fan of having traded away back to back first round picks as a team that wasn't even a surefire playoff team, let alone a contender. 

 

Some folks are more optimistic, but I view the idea that we'll be contending within the next three or four years as delusional, at best we become a team that consistently makes the playoffs imo. But hey, that's a step in the right direction. The reality is the most cup winners have to beat their had against a playoff wall before getting a sniff of a conference or cup final, we've seen it in recent years with St. Louis, Tampa, and Washington. Rare is the team that just jumps into the playoffs after a stretch of being mediocre and quickly goes all the way. Realistically that's not happening for us. 

 

I'd look to play the long game, build around our younger players and Demko and try and build a team that can consistently compete. It's part of why I've been on the trade Miller train since like.. November. I don't see us contending during whatever is left of his prime, and I'm not interested in signing a player to big dollars and term and then having him not live up to that contract during a period where the rest of the young core is probably peaking. 

 

This train of thought is why I'm okay with moving on from Boudreau, despite the team turning around this season under his watch. I don't see him as a long term fit, not at his age. He'll retire at some point, he's almost 70. Most coaches don't coach til they're almost 70 like Hitchcock did, and like Boudreau is. Boudreau could be helpful in the short term, which is why I'm okay with him returning, but given these next two or three seasons are likely to be stepping stones for a roster that I'm hoping sees significant surgery in the offseason, I question why we wouldn't look at an option who could be here on what's hopefully a more long term basis. 

[Elias Pettersson]

I think it all depends on what the management do with this team.  If we are buyers in the summer and re-sign Miller to a long term deal then I think Bruce stays on.  If they blow it up and trade Miller and Boeser and maybe others than I think Allvin will bring in a younger coach.  But it also all depends on what coach would be available.  If there is nothing out there then they simply ride out Bruce for one more year.  I don't see Boudreau signing an extension though.  At 68 he probably retires from coaching.

[Ballisticsports.]

12 hours ago, Coconuts said:

Yeah, our inability to get hits with picks and to get drafted players into the lineup has made it so that we have to slot in players via ufa or trade. In retrospect I question whether acquiring OEL and Garland was the right move, we were so close to having cap flex. Just had to ride out another season. I'm not a fan of having traded away back to back first round picks as a team that wasn't even a surefire playoff team, let alone a contender. 

 

Some folks are more optimistic, but I view the idea that we'll be contending within the next three or four years as delusional, at best we become a team that consistently makes the playoffs imo. But hey, that's a step in the right direction. The reality is the most cup winners have to beat their had against a playoff wall before getting a sniff of a conference or cup final, we've seen it in recent years with St. Louis, Tampa, and Washington. Rare is the team that just jumps into the playoffs after a stretch of being mediocre and quickly goes all the way. Realistically that's not happening for us. 

 

I'd look to play the long game, build around our younger players and Demko and try and build a team that can consistently compete. It's part of why I've been on the trade Miller train since like.. November. I don't see us contending during whatever is left of his prime, and I'm not interested in signing a player to big dollars and term and then having him not live up to that contract during a period where the rest of the young core is probably peaking. 

 

This train of thought is why I'm okay with moving on from Boudreau, despite the team turning around this season under his watch. I don't see him as a long term fit, not at his age. He'll retire at some point, he's almost 70. Most coaches don't coach til they're almost 70 like Hitchcock did, and like Boudreau is. Boudreau could be helpful in the short term, which is why I'm okay with him returning, but given these next two or three seasons are likely to be stepping stones for a roster that I'm hoping sees significant surgery in the offseason, I question why we wouldn't look at an option who could be here on what's hopefully a more long term basis. 

Yeah I was against that trade too after suffering so long with those players and the timeline didn't seem to fit with our core peaking, it seemed like a desperate move to make us better for 1-3 years but not make us greater in 2+ years by not doing the trade (even though the players moved in were better than the ones moved out)

I too agree with your view on Miller he is our best player NOW, and i like him,  (It is a shame he isn't 26/27 right now

Maybe we uncover another "Miller" how he was at 25 and a  d man, by trading him )

I like both Boudreau and Miller and hope they stay, but trust whatever plays out as best for the future

 

It is a tough call what to do and glad we have smart experienced people in charge all offering their opinions to each other and reach a consensus together

I will support and trust they make the right decision and get the best deal they can if they trade people (I am sure if players get traded we will have expected more, they are not looking to remove players just to "put their stamp" on the team and trading for the sake of trade

Their stamp will be to build the best team they can, whether that is using present players or not as putting their stamp on the team

[Coconuts]

6 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Yeah I was against that trade too after suffering so long with those players and the timeline didn't seem to fit with our core peaking, it seemed like a desperate move to make us better for 1-3 years but not make us greater in 2+ years by not doing the trade (even though the players moved in were better than the ones moved out)

I too agree with your view on Miller he is our best player NOW, and i like him,  (It is a shame he isn't 26/27 right now

Maybe we uncover another "Miller" how he was at 25 and a  d man, by trading him )

I like both Boudreau and Miller and hope they stay, but trust whatever plays out as best for the future

 

It is a tough call what to do and glad we have smart experienced people in charge all offering their opinions to each other and reach a consensus together

I will support and trust they make the right decision and get the best deal they can if they trade people (I am sure if players get traded we will have expected more, they are not looking to remove players just to "put their stamp" on the team and trading for the sake of trade

Their stamp will be to build the best team they can, whether that is using present players or not as putting their stamp on the team

If Miller was say.. 25-26 I wouldn't be as gun shy, but signed til 37-38? Yeah, that makes me nervous. 

 

I like Garland, and I'm hoping OEL bounces back next season, but yeah.. in retrospect we should have just swallowed the poison pill for another season. Rouss, Beagle, and Player Name would all be expiring and we'd have a glut of cap space opened up. It's easy to look back on it now but it looks shortsighted in retrospect. 

 

Yeah, we're fortunate we've got what seems like a good management group in place. That's big. It'll be interesting to see what they do. 

[mll]

There are 11 teams with coaches either named as interim or in the final year of their deals.   Boudreau might get a longer commitment from one of those teams.

 

Anaheim - Eakins

Chicago - King

Detroit - Blashill

Dallas - Bowness

Edmonton - Woodcroft

Florida - Brunette

Montreal - St-Louis

Nashville - Hynes

Philadelphia - Yeo

Vancouver - Boudreau

Winnipeg - Lowry

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by mll

[Kevin Biestra]

On 4/2/2022 at 9:07 PM, Coconuts said:

Yeah, our inability to get hits with picks and to get drafted players into the lineup has made it so that we have to slot in players via ufa or trade. In retrospect I question whether acquiring OEL and Garland was the right move, we were so close to having cap flex. Just had to ride out another season. I'm not a fan of having traded away back to back first round picks as a team that wasn't even a surefire playoff team, let alone a contender.

 

I thought it was kind of ridiculous at the time and still think it was dumb.  I like Garland and I would have given a late 1st rounder for him one for one...but 9th overall plus OEL when he's 65 years old just to get out of one year of bad contracts...silly.  The whole thing hinged on OEL never aging and Garland being super awesome.  Garland is just good.

 

If we wanted OEL that badly we likely just had to wait a year and we wouldn't have had to pay to get rid of those contracts at all.  We'd have our 9th overall pick on his way into the system.  We could have tried to trade something one for one for Garland if there was time pressure there.  And OEL on his own might well have been negative value...Phoenix might have paid us to take him.

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Kevin Biestra

[DownUndaCanuck]

I do hope Bruce is happy to coach for 1 more season and the team is too. This season we were fighting an up hill battle, you have to hand it to everyone, but I think the guys learned a lot this year. That's why I think a full off-season together and starting the year together with hopefully minimal changes will lead us to a good run. Then regardless of what happens next year Bruce is free to leave if he wants, but he's got a lot more winning culture he could impart on this team.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Fanuck]

3 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

If I'm not mistaken, we need to get to the playoffs before getting through them, no? 

[King Heffy]

I guess I'd be ok with Maurice if there's some fire behind the smoke.  I do not want another inexperienced coach after the two unqualified idiots we had before Bruce.

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by King Heffy

[Alflives]

Just now, Fanuck said:

If I'm not mistaken, we need to get to the playoffs before getting through them, no? 

I'm wondering if the idea was more about BB is a good coach for a team that is already a contender.  But, for a rebuilding/retooling team BB isn't the guy.  

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I guess I'd be ok with Maurice if there's some fire behind the smoke.  I do not want another inexperienced coach after the two unqualified idiots we had before Bruce.

 

@King Heffy

I wonder if What management does with BB will effect the decisions of Miller, Bo, and Boeser to sign new contracts with us?  These players have been here through the terrible coaching days and might not trust our owner to pay up for an experienced coach (like Maurice) if BB isn't retained???

Edited April 4, 2022 by Alflives

[Devron]

9 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Lol wow! Put your money where your mouth is. Is he suggesting Allvin make Stanley Cup team next year then? 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

4 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

If I'm not mistaken, we need to get to the playoffs before getting through them, no? 

If the speculation is true, my sense is they don't feel confident about his previous playoff results compared to his regular season success.

 

[Devron]

Maybe Rutherford is too old to be a president. 

[Fanuck]

1 hour ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

If the speculation is true, my sense is they don't feel confident about his previous playoff results compared to his regular season success.

 

Yeah, I've heard that criticism of BB before.  I think he's proven he can coach, I'd like to see what he could do with a full season myself. 

[stawns]

On 4/3/2022 at 4:53 PM, Coconuts said:

If Miller was say.. 25-26 I wouldn't be as gun shy, but signed til 37-38? Yeah, that makes me nervous. 

 

I like Garland, and I'm hoping OEL bounces back next season, but yeah.. in retrospect we should have just swallowed the poison pill for another season. Rouss, Beagle, and Player Name would all be expiring and we'd have a glut of cap space opened up. It's easy to look back on it now but it looks shortsighted in retrospect. 

 

Yeah, we're fortunate we've got what seems like a good management group in place. That's big. It'll be interesting to see what they do. 

What didn't you like about OEL?  He's had a solid year