New management worries me

[Elias Pettersson]

4 minutes ago, The Lock said:

This season wasn't that season though. I would love that to be incorrect, but we didn't make the playoffs let alone the stanley cup.

 

You want the above to be true here? Well you need to think long term as opposed to just this season.

This is what the Canucks fans said in 1982.  There was no shot.  Then the team came together and we rode a hot goalie.  Same thing happened in the bubble.  Who's to say with a couple of moves we sneak in and Demko plays like bubble Demko?

 

Anyways, I think we've beaten this like a dead horse...

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

This is what the Canucks fans said in 1982.  There was no shot.  Then the team came together and we rode a hot goalie.  Same thing happened in the bubble.  Who's to say with a couple of moves we sneak in and Demko plays like bubble Demko?

 

Anyways, I think we've beaten this like a dead horse...

We made the playoffs in 82. We didn't this year. You're comparing years where we made the playoffs to this year. While you're right in that you only need 1 shot, you need to be able to get there. Motte alone doesn't get us there.

 

I get that you miss Motte. In no way am I making a case to say Motte's not a good player. He's a good player, but he's a 4th liner.

 

Don't get me wrong, I get the frustration of not making the playoffs and the fact that we got close but not close enough; however, to think that a 4th liner alone would have got us to the playoffs... you are on some strong amounts of copium my dude.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

I can see having some concerns over this management group.  Their handling of the Bruce situation is too smart by a half.  If they really want someone else then go for it but damning with faint praise and daring him to jump ship is just passing the buck while trying to look decisive.  With that said, I do agree with their critique of our systems play and breakouts.  But I'm not sure if going public with that critique at this moment was the most constructive move. 

Undoubtedly they are overhauling how the organization does scouting and player development:  we'll just have to wait on the results there but it's hard to question the need to do it.  As far as getting relevant perspectives into the decision-making process, I still vastly prefer the team they've assembled over the JB/Weisbrod duo.  But I get the sense that Allvin isn't going to wear well as a communicator and that we'll end up as sick of him on that front as we were of Benning:  different styles (bumpkin vs. velcro lips) but similarly grating. 

[DSVII]

20 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

This is what the Canucks fans said in 1982.  There was no shot.  Then the team came together and we rode a hot goalie.  Same thing happened in the bubble.  Who's to say with a couple of moves we sneak in and Demko plays like bubble Demko?

 

Anyways, I think we've beaten this like a dead horse...

You're referencing two instances that took place 38 years apart. The bubble team was not built to last cap wise and was dismantled the following off-season and we're still paying for that. Who's to say Bubble Demko won't show up anymore because we ran him into the ground playing him 70+ games in the regular season?

 

We gotta think long term here, even if it means taking a step back in one season or two to set ourselves up for the future. The Stanley Cup is won on a game of inches and every little move that invests in the future helps, even a 4th rounder. 

 

[DSVII]

3 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

I can see having some concerns over this management group.  Their handling of the Bruce situation is too smart by a half.  If they really want someone else then go for it but damning with faint praise and daring him to jump ship is just passing the buck while trying to look decisive.  With that said, I do agree with their critique of our systems play and breakouts.  But I'm not sure if going public with that critique at this moment was the most constructive move. 

Undoubtedly they are overhauling how the organization does scouting and player development:  we'll just have to wait on the results there but it's hard to question the need to do it.  As far as getting relevant perspectives into the decision-making process, I still vastly prefer the team they've assembled over the JB/Weisbrod duo.  But I get the sense that Allvin isn't going to wear well as a communicator and that we'll end up as sick of him on that front as we were of Benning:  different styles (bumpkin vs. velcro lips) but similarly grating. 

Too smart by a half, but it seemed to have paid off this time with the availability of Trotz. But yeah, will see how the off-season plays out.

 

I honestly don't see how Allvin is grating communication wise, granted i've only watched one presser (the season ender) and he seems to carry himself well enough, but I've said this about Benning when he started, I don't care if the GM is as articulate to the media as a stack of bricks, as long as their actions show they know their business. So Allvin is still in his grace period for me.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Just now, DSVII said:

Too smart by a half, but it seemed to have paid off this time with the availability of Trotz. But yeah, will see how the off-season plays out.

 

I honestly don't see how Allvin is grating communication wise, granted i've only watched one presser (the season ender) and he seems to carry himself well enough, but I've said this about Benning when he started, I don't care if the GM is as articulate to the media as a stack of bricks, as long as their actions show they know their business. So Allvin is still in his grace period for me.

Actions are what matters, for sure.  And it's easy to understand why GMs don't want to share everything with the fan base and feel like they have to manage our stellar media.  Trotz ... I don't think so but there's no denying he'd fix our systems play. 

[CanucksJay]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

If the price was right, they would not have traded him, he would have re-signed.

Yes but then he got injured and didn't have a coming out party during the playoffs like his camp had hoped. Might be signing at a lower value now. 

 

Other teams might be weary signing an injury prone 4th liner while we know exactly what we are getting

Edited May 10, 2022 by CanucksJay

[CanucksJay]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

The object of the game is to win the Stanley Cup.

If you can trade an often injured 4th line player, that has already turned down an extension you do it.

To win the Stanley cup, you need to Assemble the best roster possible. In my books that's Motte over most other 4th liners in this league. 

[-DLC-]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

We made the playoffs in 82. We didn't this year. You're comparing years where we made the playoffs to this year. While you're right in that you only need 1 shot, you need to be able to get there. Motte alone doesn't get us there.

 

I get that you miss Motte. In no way am I making a case to say Motte's not a good player. He's a good player, but he's a 4th liner.

 

Don't get me wrong, I get the frustration of not making the playoffs and the fact that we got close but not close enough; however, to think that a 4th liner alone would have got us to the playoffs... you are on some strong amounts of copium my dude.

This year is different though.

 

Split it in half...the first half under Green where they dug a huge hole then the second half under Boudreau where they almost DID get in. 

 

You can't ignore the fact that this team put together a really impressive last few months, but you are.

 

A lot of people still aren't convinced that we don't need a big overhaul and a few pieces could have put us there. Are you watching the playoffs? It's an open door for any team with good goaltending that gets hot. That could be this team as well as some of the teams that are there. Our team was inconsistent....but the playoffs are showing us that no team just barrels through and ups/downs are just part of it.

[The Lock]

Just now, -DLC- said:

This year is different though.

 

Split it in half...the first half under Green where they dug a huge hole then the second half under Boudreau where they almost DID get in. 

 

You can't ignore the fact that this team put together a really impressive last few months, but you are.

 

A lot of people still aren't convinced that we don't need a big overhaul and a few pieces could have put us there. Are you watching the playoffs? It's an open door for any team with good goaltending that gets hot. That could be this team.

Where have I ignored the fact that they put an impressive run the last few months? I've even stated in posts here that they came close, just not close enough. If we made the playoffs, I would agree that 82 could be a good comparison, but we didn't, mostly because we had a bad start.

 

I also have said nothing about an overhaul. Motte reportedly was likely to walk at the end of the season due to asking for more money than management would have wanted to give, so we traded him while he had value. Motte alone wouldn't have made us make the playoffs. I'd even argue that the fact that we had a poor start is all the more reason we should be focusing on the future rather than on a Motte that wasn't going to be here anyway

 

Like I said, I get missing Motte, but he wasn't going to be here in the future anyway if we are to take the reports at face value.

[Alflives]

5 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

This year is different though.

 

Split it in half...the first half under Green where they dug a huge hole then the second half under Boudreau where they almost DID get in. 

 

You can't ignore the fact that this team put together a really impressive last few months, but you are.

 

A lot of people still aren't convinced that we don't need a big overhaul and a few pieces could have put us there. Are you watching the playoffs? It's an open door for any team with good goaltending that gets hot. That could be this team as well as some of the teams that are there. Our team was inconsistent....but the playoffs are showing us that no team just barrels through and ups/downs are just part of it.

JR has said on several occasions he wants to build a team that can be consistently in the playoffs and have a good chance of winning.  I don't think he is interested in "just getting into the playoffs" and then needing some kind of magical run, like 1982.  I trust JR to follow that path; I don't trust our owner.

[-DLC-]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

JR has said on several occasions he wants to build a team that can be consistently in the playoffs and have a good chance of winning.  I don't think he is interested in "just getting into the playoffs" and then needing some kind of magical run, like 1982.  I trust JR to follow that path; I don't trust our owner.

Consistently getting into the playoffs is every team's goal....but it can take some time to get there and I feel our team's starting to gel/build chemistry that matters in all of it.

 

As much as you've said "magical run" it's kind of a magical run for teams that are consistently in the playoffs. Goaltending being key (check). 

 

I care about winning the cup ONCE....much more than "consistently" trying for one.

[-DLC-]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

Don't get me wrong, I get the frustration of not making the playoffs and the fact that we got close but not close enough; however, to think that a 4th liner alone would have got us to the playoffs... you are on some strong amounts of copium my dude.

 

5 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Where have I ignored the fact that they put an impressive run the last few months?

You've made it sound like we were WAY off.

 

When, in fact, under Bruce we posted a record of 32-15-10, a 106-point pace over a full 82-game season (copy/pasted...did not check for accuracy but trust it as such).

[The Lock]

25 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

 

You've made it sound like we were WAY off.

 

When, in fact, under Bruce we posted a record of 32-15-10, a 106-point pace over a full 82-game season (copy/pasted...did not check for accuracy but trust it as such).

We weren't way off. We were 5 points behind the closest team to beat (technically 6 points considering those teams would have likely won a tie breaker)

 

I'm just saying I have a very hard time thinking that Motte's the difference maker to get those 5 points. We could get into a whole bunch of "alternate history" theories about this but history would have rewritten itself had Motte stayed, either with us having more points, the same number or points, or even less points.

 

Edit: Given the fact that we had such a great run after Green... it unfortunately makes getting more points with Motte less likely. It was already a run we've deemed as being "unlikely", but it happened. We should be appreciative of what happened and look to the future for that to happen again rather than being caught up on Motte.

Edited May 10, 2022 by The Lock

[Alflives]

8 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

Consistently getting into the playoffs is every team's goal....but it can take some time to get there and I feel our team's starting to gel/build chemistry that matters in all of it.

 

As much as you've said "magical run" it's kind of a magical run for teams that are consistently in the playoffs. Goaltending being key (check). 

 

I care about winning the cup ONCE....much more than "consistently" trying for one.

I think JR believes that winning the Cup once is far more likely to happen if a team is consistently in the playoffs and they are good.  Currently we aren't there.  JR seems to believe our window to be consistently good will open in two years.  I don't see him making any moves to "win now" like the Benning stuff.  

[IBatch]

14 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

Consistently getting into the playoffs is every team's goal....but it can take some time to get there and I feel our team's starting to gel/build chemistry that matters in all of it.

 

As much as you've said "magical run" it's kind of a magical run for teams that are consistently in the playoffs. Goaltending being key (check). 

 

I care about winning the cup ONCE....much more than "consistently" trying for one.

Yes one time would be glorious.  

[higgyfan]

41 minutes ago, Muttley said:

 Of course Podkolzin is not going to be moved. Lets make sure, everyone knows that having more cap space is what new management said publically. 

That doesn't, or shouldn't, mean purging the team of it's best players. The rumors are that management is not moving on without their captain. 

Also; If they can come to a reasonable agreement on an multi year extension for Miller, he would be a big part of the future as well. It is thought, Miller

wants to finish the job here and it may reflect in lower numbers than what's being bantered about. As for Boeser, he's not 100% gone either. They want 

to talk to him about restructuring his contract, (it's a 7.5 qualifier, not 8.5) which has accidently mentioned 3 or 4 times in the last few pages.

Did hear talk on possibly attempting to move Myers or even OEL because of their whopping cap hits. Doubt this happens but it's out there.

I only hope this nonsense about Boudreau not coming back fades away.  Everything indicates he's behind the bench next season.  Cannot be 

ignored what a spectacular turn around happened when he took over...

 

 

How will they increase cap space if they keep the team as it is?

[RU SERIOUS]

3 hours ago, Drewman said:

Where the hell are you getting $8.5 mill for Brock from? That's WAY over his qualifying offer. Makes it hard to take what you say seriously when you throw those kind of numbers around.

You are correct - his Q.O. is $7.500,000 Million US$D or ~$9.778.000 Cdn.    I was "WAAAAAAAAY" off by 1   

(appologies - Typo) 

...thanks for pointing that out!!! 

Edited May 10, 2022 by RU SERIOUS

[Provost]

2 hours ago, -DLC- said:

Consistently getting into the playoffs is every team's goal....but it can take some time to get there and I feel our team's starting to gel/build chemistry that matters in all of it.

 

As much as you've said "magical run" it's kind of a magical run for teams that are consistently in the playoffs. Goaltending being key (check). 

 

I care about winning the cup ONCE....much more than "consistently" trying for one.

Well, you were supportive of the last regime to the point of toxicity and they not only didn't win us a Cup.... but didn't even get us to the playoffs and our team didn't improve over almost a decade being one of the worst teams in the league for an impressive amount of time considering the high draft picks we got for being so bad.

Good organizations aren't built on wishful thinking.  Deliberate planning and executing on those plans is how teams win.  With THAT in place, then they need some luck and things to fall into place with injuries, hot streaks, and chemistry in order to actually come out as the champions.

 

[-DLC-]

5 minutes ago, Provost said:

Well, you were supportive of the last regime to the point of toxicity and they not only didn't win us a Cup.... but didn't even get us to the playoffs and our team didn't improve over almost a decade being one of the worst teams in the league for an impressive amount of time considering the high draft picks we got for being so bad.

Good organizations aren't built on wishful thinking.  Deliberate planning and executing on those plans is how teams win.  With THAT in place, then they need some luck and things to fall into place with injuries, hot streaks, and chemistry in order to actually come out as the champions.

 

You mean the high draft picks that converted straight to NHL players? Give them time.

 

All the planning in the world can still fall flat...paper isn't everything. There are FAR too many variables that come into play. That doesn't mean you don't plan and have a vision, but you also have to be flexible and adapt according to how things are unfolding. There are some surprises out there, both good and bad, and all the planning in the world can't account for them.

 

Every team "plans" to build a winner but there isn't one foolproof formula. All teams are dogs chasing their tails in respect to having to make adjustments due to injury, players not panning out, etc. It's isn't a matter of do A and B and C will happen.

 

How was I "supportive of the last regime to the point of toxicity"? Can you provide examples?

 

I mean, many were ready to ditch Petey. Didn't want him in the first place ("OMG VILARDI GLASS"). So we all have our opinions but believing in some of our players (not all) isn't really toxic. If I didn't like the team I'd find another. Not believing in them is more closely related to toxicity in my view...why bother?