While this management group has been an absolute trainwreck from the beginning (see handling of BB), the overall performance really boils down to the major decisions. And while management needs to be judged ex post on results, I think they should also be looked at ex ante. Here were the major decisions:
- Get hired, choose to keep with the core. Ex ante -- right decision, while the core had underperformed, it had strength down the middle of the ice and the complements had been poorly assembled and the coaching had been tuned out. Ex post -- still the right decision. There was nothing in the pipeline to complement if there were to be a firesale, and making this decision got the Canucks a division title that might have been a sign of things to come but for Miller's implosion, EP40s disappearance, and Demko's health.
- [EP40, Horvat, Miller, who to keep, who to move? With the salary cap, this really wasn't an option. Ex ante -- good decision -- it probably had the best chance of working out to keep the youngest and most skilled and the play driver -- but probably any would have worked out in the near term if a true #2 RHD was going to be the ultimate return (and good on them for getting Hronek). Ex post, I am sure that most think EP40 should have been moved b/c he probably returns the most in a trade and because his performance would fall off a year after the trade. But me? Ex post I would have chosen Miller because I think his implosion was both material to the Canucks failure and I think it is very likely that the time bomb was ticking regardless of the contributing factor (believed to be EP40's contract and lack of commitment). No one else imploded over it.... Only if management knew or should have known Miller's runway was shorter than his contract would Miller have been the obvious choice to move.
- Hire Tochett. Setting aside the brutal mismanagement of BB, ex ante, this is mixed and ex post it is mixed. How can I say this about a Jack Adamas winner who got more performance from this team than previous coaches? Because Tochett's knock and attribute were the same: he'd play Tockey. But what was gained in cohesion was lost in dynamism, especially in offensive transition. And in the course of that, destroyed a 76 point transfer from the KHL and put EP40 in about as poor of a role as he could have been in to succeed. As Tochett opened up about needing to be more flexible, the team played even more Tockey. (I like Tochett and think he will be a better NHL coach for this experience. But peak AV would have done so much more with this team.....)
- The post-Miller plan. Miller's implosion and his trade required the Canucks to adopt a new plan, and the path they chartered was to peak at a playoff bubble team. The return was okay given the options, but they use the first get MP3, neither addressing their weakness nor looking at a new future 1 (fragile) center deep. They opted for safe certainty with the resigning of Lankinen as well. Managing downside risk instead of taking risks with youth or hording assets to pull off something bigger. Ex ante, very questionable, Ex post, disastrous.
- The summer to keep the Captain at all costs. Part of the post-Miller plan, to be sure, but the idea was that with the core stripped and a in-the-conversation-for-best-Canuck-ever talent needing to be resigned in 2 years, the entire summer seemed focused on making moves they thought would make Quinn happy -- sign his friends. With Demko and Garland inked earlier than necessary (Garland isn't a July 1 a year out talent when the future is uncertain; Demko would be but huge question marks about health (and not too much of a discount given), the management continued its recent pattern of acting faster than they need to act. Boeser, well, given what was on the free agent market, the deal made some hockey sense, but really, it was mostly for the feels. I don't mind terribly taking the risk on Demko (though I think it would have been prudent to wait and a deal still could have been had because those injury questions would keep hi FA value depressed). But the think about the summer for Quinn's friends is that Quinn didn't just want to play with his buddies -- he wanted to win. Ex ante, this was all very questionable, but absolutely unforgivable if they had a very strong idea that QH was not going to resign and that winning was the prerequisite. Ex post, disaster.
I'm keeping the list to 5 -- the Lindholm trade is probably 6, but it is in so many ways a subset of the hire Tochett decision....
Plan A (keep the core, fix the complements) was really done in by the Miller drama, and avoidable only if Miller was the man moved instead of Horvat. It might have survived declining performance, Tochett's inflexibility, and even some injuries Miller wasn't part of the team. Of course, the Canucks probably don't win the division in 2023-24 -- but maybe even that, a team with an upwards trajectory instead of the one that accomplished something, might have been a better base for 2024-25. But once Miller happened, management failed in setting the new framework (wrong goal, stay in playoff hunt (still failed) maximize bubble-ability in 2025-26 (still failed)), acted impatiently to serve a too-modest goal (signing players they didn't need to sign at the time they did), and lost some assets that would be used in a rebuild (and rebuild or not, I think the NYR first was always worth more than the marginal upgrade of MP3 (who I like as a player) to Soucy). [My view -- there was no reason to tear it all down with the Miller trade, but that it was the time to play to get lucky, meaning force youth in there too soon and see if they surprise, and if they don't, then turn vets into future assets...]
It wasn't that every decision was bad. Management has done a better jobs with trades -- the return for Hughes has potential and may be the best that could be done, and if Rossi isn't on the new timeline, he can be an asset to move. They didn't sell low on EP40 (and I think he will be moved in the next year or two, and for more than people think -- because the market is not set by what most people think of, say, OEL on his Coyotes contract, but by what 1 (ideally 2 to get a bidding war game going) team thinks of him). The Hronek acquisition was brilliant for the plan, the team's needs, and the player -- and frankly could be a huge asset to move again (he'll get at least what he was acquired for) or he might be the one player you keep around because he's a good player model for the young D).
I am also not one to want to trigger the rebuild switch too fast, and the reason for that is (1) its harder to get a core than you think and (2) delaying for a year or two too long is fine so long as the asset value on unwinding is not worse off. MP3 and Silovs are examples of moves that exchanged youth and futures for less -- and that was no small thing. Time will tell whether re-signing Garland will make him less valuable on the trade market than if it were just a deadline deal this year. Boeser -- I buy that the return was unacceptable last spring. If he turns around his game (but not enough), it surely might be that he's stuck here, but even rebuilding teams need a veteran or two who can score a bit. Boeser's future is Tyler Toffoli....
I just want a top 2 pick.... And want someone other than JR and RoboSwede to be making it.....
" 
