Canucks News N Notes 24-25

[Kenji]

Gone gone gone I been gone gone gone so long.

Missed you guys. Hey did I miss anything else? Any drama on the bucks?

Hey Kenji, where ya been?

Hi guys, sorry to interrupt. I have been lurking around Canucks Army and on the twitter. I went to bluesky but it is very, very weird there. And threads. Have not gone to Truth Social. Anyway hi, carry on!

[5thhorseman]

If one has to go it’s Miller for me. ... But more importantly it’s Millers age vs Petey that comes into play,

Agree. If we keep Miller our window is very short or almost over. What's the point?

Our window should be centered around Hughes' age and Petey fits that better, regardless of whether he's elite or not. So we're essentially depending on Petey being a late bloomer to getting stronger and more physical to take advantage of Hughes' late-20s.

[Meds]

Also must bear in mind that one of these guys has active trade protection, the other does not.

[Chef Boi RD]

Friedman saying the Canucks are prioritizing a C in any trade return. Guess that makes sense, Canucks D should be much better once their top pairing returns.

When you already have Hughes and Hronek on the team and Willander coming at the end of the year, and absolutely nothing in the system of quality at centre ice position after Miller and Petey it’s not rocket science as to what they are wanting in return.

[Topper]

If one has to go it’s Miller for me. ... But more importantly it’s Millers age vs Petey that comes into play,

Agree. If we keep Miller our window is very short or almost over. What's the point?

Our window should be centered around Hughes' age and Petey fits that better, regardless of whether he's elite or not. So we're essentially depending on Petey being a late bloomer to getting stronger and more physical to take advantage of Hughes' late-20s.

Is Scooter the forward to build around?

[5thhorseman]

If one has to go it’s Miller for me. ... But more importantly it’s Millers age vs Petey that comes into play,

Agree. If we keep Miller our window is very short or almost over. What's the point?

Our window should be centered around Hughes' age and Petey fits that better, regardless of whether he's elite or not. So we're essentially depending on Petey being a late bloomer to getting stronger and more physical to take advantage of Hughes' late-20s.

Is Scooter the forward to build around?

Maybe, maybe not, but Miller's too old to build around, and if we trade Petey we wont be receiving anyone we can build around.

Our path is Hughes + Petey, like it or not, is my point. Unless the Baldies can pull off a miracle blockbuster trade.

[Topper]

Under the previous management*, a staircase of ages was the way to go in their efforts to build (outside of placeholders), I'm not sure this current management thinks that way as they play the FA, trade and rental markets more than the previous group would.

* trigger alert (aka kick the couch on the front lawn)

[Chef Boi RD]

Canucks are looking for a young centre in return apparently. If you can do:

Miller for centre Cozens. Buffalo needs a shot in the arm
Miller for centre Fantilli. See Buffalo
Miller for centre Jarvis. For a cup run
Miller for centre Leonard. Cup Run for Ovechkin
Miller for centre Mercer. Cup run NJ

Chef is good

[Blob Mckenzie]

Under the previous management, a staircase of ages was the way to go in their efforts to build (outside of placeholders), I'm not sure this current management thinks that way as they play the FA, trade and rental markets more than the previous group would.

Yeah that worked well from 2014-2022.

[Chef Boi RD]

It’s of my esteemed opinion in that how the baldies manage the team between now and next season is when we will know for certain that they have done things right. The book isn’t written yet as to whether they done good or not. I’m 50/50 in my decision. They’ve proven fuck all to this point. Not a fan of what they’ve done to the pipeline. How they built defence this season, the results have been atrocious. I would call it an atrocity. And how they have handled the dressing room conflict has been an abomination for the local fan base and media.

[Cousin Strawberry]

It’s of my esteemed opinion in that how the baldies manage the team between now and next season is when we will know for certain that they have done things right. The book isn’t written yet as to whether they done good or not. I’m 50/50 in my decision. They’ve proven fuck all to this point. Not a fan of what they’ve done to the pipeline. How they built defence this season, the results have been atrocious. I would call it an atrocity. And how they have handled the dressing room conflict has been an abomination for the local fan base and media.

Last year's defense additions were seen as a bit of a revelation

I suspect they were blinded by career years (defensively)out of Myers and Soucy. Both have reverted to their mean, so to speak, and we are left with a top pair and a gaggle of 5/6s

[Ronning's Ghost]

Can you dumb it down a bit and say what your roster construction concerns are? Or perhaps elaborate your thoughts on the brevity of the window...

By Blobular request:

The two ideas are related in that the resulting brevity of the window has been, and remains, my principle concern with the roster construction. My underlying assumption is that if a team is to have a significant and sustained shot at a championship, management needs to set up a roster so that the talent is concentrated over a specific period of time.

When I look at our current roster.....

Miller
Pettersson
Boeser
Hughes
Hronek
Demko

Are the core players.

I think most would agree, so let's go with that interpretation of the core.

Demko was a brilliant draft pick, and has played great for the Canucks. He was one of the top 3 goalies in the world for significant stretches.

But he was damaged goods coming out of the draft, needing hip surgery before he could join the Canucks. That might even be why he was available at that draft position. The surgery was success, so that part of the gamble paid off, but another reasonably foreseeable consequence was that he might not have the career length of most other goalies of equal calibre, and that's looking like it's coming to pass.

Boeser was another great draft pick. But while we include him in the core because of his talent level, does anyone on this board think that he is more than a complementary piece? He has shown no ability to drive play on his own. I would accept the argument that you need a player like this on a championship team, but he’s also not someone you can build around. And at 28, he is probably getting near the end of his peak competitive window, too.

Miller has been a great player for the Canucks, but I have always had trouble with the timing of the acquisition. (It doesn’t seem we can search the archives anymore, but I expect that some of you remember.) Trading a draft pick for a player who can help now is a perfectly sensible thing to do as one enters the competitive window, but it seemed to me to be premature when it was done. Now soon to be 32, he has entered the phase of his career when we expect most forwards to decline. Some might say it’s already started.

So while those were all good players, previous management set the Canucks up for a brief window by taking a long time to assemble the talent, and consciously including an older player. Two of those players –- one from Benning’s first season of draft picks, and one acquired in place of a draft pick -- might already have missed that window.

Current management, for its part, has responded to that challenge by trying to make the most of this window, rather than to extend it. I have no trouble believing that they were under orders from ownership in this regard, but it appears that they are in win now mode.

One way this shows up is in the trade for core member Hronek. If you believe that the Canucks are in their peak competitive phase, then spending draft capital to acquire core member Hronek makes sense. Hronek can reasonably be expected to continue to be effective through a few of the most productive years of the youngest members of the core, but he can also be reasonably expected to decline and retire before they do.

The other manifestation of this apparent plan to make the most of any existing window is passing on any opportunity to get anything like maximum return on the declining assets described above.

So that's two-thirds of the acknowledged core. The remainders, Pettersson and Hughes, are spectacularly talented players who probably still have quite a lot of top career years in front of them, but they have their limitations, too, which impose some constraints on the rest of the roster construction. Some of Pettersson’s limitations have been the focus of recent parts of this topic.

All the other teams in the League have their roster challenges, too, but right now, about half of them are winning more often that the Canucks are.
That doesn't strike me as a very promising competitive window.

[Ronning's Ghost]

If one has to go it’s Miller for me. ... But more importantly it’s Millers age vs Petey that comes into play,

Agree. If we keep Miller our window is very short or almost over. What's the point?

Our window should be centered around Hughes' age and Petey fits that better, regardless of whether he's elite or not. So we're essentially depending on Petey being a late bloomer to getting stronger and more physical to take advantage of Hughes' late-20s.

Is Scooter the forward to build around?

Maybe, maybe not, but Miller's too old to build around, and if we trade Petey we wont be receiving anyone we can build around.

Our path is Hughes + Petey, like it or not, is my point. Unless the Baldies can pull off a miracle blockbuster trade.

I must agree.

And I think that if the Canucks want to minimize the time to the next serious competitive opportunity, they should get on that project before this trade deadline.

But my interpretation of the moves up to this point is that the management/ownership group doesn't see it that way, or at least, hasn't seen it that way up to now.

Edited: one time to fix a typo

[Ronning's Ghost]

Under the previous management*, a staircase of ages was the way to go in their efforts to build (outside of placeholders)

My underlying assumption is that if a team is to have a significant and sustained shot at a championship, management needs to set up a roster so that the talent is concentrated over a specific period of time.

Just another point on which Mr. Benning and I disagreed.

He was probably right in the 80s, when that would have been a good way to build a solid franchise with a chance to compete year after year, and if you did a great job, maybe even a dynasty, but I don't see that working in any 21st century professional team sport.

[Meds]

When I look at our current roster.....

Miller
Pettersson
Boeser
Hughes
Hronek
Demko

Are the core players.

I think most would agree, so let's go with that interpretation of the core.

...

Boeser was another great draft pick. But while we include him in the core because of his talent level, does anyone on this board think that he is more than a complementary piece? He has shown no ability to drive play on his own.

That argument is also true of Pettersson. He's not a play driver, he has been a "half-boards decoy" (I believe Topper coined that) with flashes of brilliance.

Boeser has overcome some significant personal life upheaval that most guys in their mid-20's aren't having to face these days. He loves it in Vancouver and last season was our second best 200 foot player (only JT was better). This season, with a couple of game exception due to a concussion, he has been our most consistent 200 foot player in the top-6. The consistency we've seen from him since October 2023 is why I have him in this group. Otherwise, I would agree that in most cases a winger with a career production averaging 31G/66Pts per 82 game season is more complimentary than core. During his slumps, I never saw Boeser pout the way I have with Scooter.....and Lord knows that Brock had bigger things to pout over than Eleven Pointtsixersson.

Miller has been a great player for the Canucks, but I have always had trouble with the timing of the acquisition. (It doesn’t seem we can search the archives anymore, but I expect that some of you remember.) Trading a draft pick for a player who can help now is a perfectly sensible thing to do as one enters the competitive window, but it seemed to me to be premature when it was done. Now soon to be 32, he has entered the phase of his career when we expect most forwards to decline. Some might say it’s already started.

I voiced concerns like this when they extended him and Horvat was traded.....Miller's age didn't fit. However, when factoring projected cap increases, I think that his age does actually fit if the plan was to have his decline managed by seeing his 1C spot transition to a 2C spot as Pettersson matured into a 1C. The problem was (and still is) that I never saw Pettersson maturing into a leader. Pettersson has always been, imho, a fringe piece of the core.....one that can score at an insane pace, but not one you can count on game in and game out. For me, that's the biggest factor in deciding who is a core player, consistency and leadership.

So that's two-thirds of the acknowledged core. The remainders, Pettersson and Hughes, are spectacularly talented players who probably still have quite a lot of top career years in front of them, but they have their limitations, too, which impose some constraints on the rest of the roster construction. Some of Pettersson’s limitations have been the focus of recent parts of this topic.

IMEHO, Hughes only limitation is the physical part of the game that traditionally is associated with your 1D, I think his mobility and IQ more than compensate for that. He reminds me of a small Duncan Keith, only Hughes is a better skater, passer, and puck carrier.....Despite Daniel Sedin's opinion, Keith wasn't known to be extremely physical (outside of a flying elbow or two).

When you consider that your core are the players who stay put and their linemates and partners transition around them, I think it's more than fair to say that the core guys need to have leadership qualities that they actually exhibit, they need to be consistent in their effort (results aren't a 100% guarantee in pro sports), and they need to display character that fosters teamwork and compete.

Based on that I think it is also fair to say that neither Petterson nor Miller are the best examples of this sort of thing. However, JT has been far better and more consistent in this area than Pettersson.