Sometimes the plan matches the results

21061118-01

I see Jim Benning was on the radio this morning passive-aggressively asking for fans to be patient:

“I’m not going to make no apologies as to where we’re at. Our fans, I think, understand what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to be competitive and develop young players.”

But here’s the thing with the current team running the Vancouver Canucks: they don’t actually have a plan. Yes, they have an end goal in mind. Well, two, actually. But they don’t have a plan on how to get there. At least not in the sense of what a well-run business would call a plan.

There’s no strategy. There’s no logic. There’s no milestones. No metrics, checkpoints or structure. 

In short, there is no process. And in the absence of process, there’s certainly no attention paid to measuring progress.

How do I know this? Well, let me tell you.

I’ve been around the business world long enough to have seen plenty of organizations and business units that don’t have a plan with all of those elements in place. And the telltale sign of any organization that doesn’t have a rational strategic plan, with metrics and a process for monitoring progress is that they react. 

Instead of Plan-Do-Check-Act, they just do and (re)act.

They are like a pendulum swinging back and forth, overshooting their mark on each pass.

You can see it in how they’ve tried to address holes in the roster. By the end of last season, they had (finally) realized that there was no depth on the blueline. They needed to fill that gap.

So what did they do? They filled it. And boy did they ever.

They traded for Larsen. They dragged Tryamkin over. They traded for Gudbranson. They signed Stecher. They drafted Juolevi. That’s on top of Biega (who is apparently too valuable to risk losing on waivers), Pedan, and Subban. All that, while basically telling Dan Hamhuis, who probably has the best combination of skill, character and experience out of the bunch, to take a hike after jerking him around at the deadline.

So while it’s good on them to realize they needed to address the blueline, they overshot. And now, they find themselves in the position of having a logjam on defense. Even with Tanev out, Biega and Larsen are sitting around taking up roster spots because they don’t want risk putting them on waivers.

When Tanev comes back, they’ll probably send Stecher back down because they can. But he’s probably been their second best defenseman in Tanev’s absence, so they are now in a situation where they can’t deploy an optimal lineup because they saw a need and (over)reacted.

Why am I going on about this?

Well, because the new shiny object now is the elusive 20-goal scorer. And the price will probably be one of those defensive assets. So the pendulum will now swing in the other direction, and you can be assured that Sbisa isn’t going to get you a 20-goal scorer. It’s not like those guys grow on trees

No, the names being tossed out are Tanev and Hutton, and while I think even these guys aren’t dumb enough to trade Tanev, I could definitely see them shipping off Hutton.

Overshoot.

And the problem is that every time they overshoot, they are eroding their asset base and creating a problem somewhere else.

I mean, why do they have such an urgent problem that they to find a 20-goal scorer?

Well, for one thing, Loui Eriksson has struggled to find his scoring touch and his place in this lineup. But since they don’t seem to know anything about process and just tend to react, it’s like he doesn’t exist. You want to add a 20-goal scorer to your lineup? GET LOUI ERIKSSON GOING. Do everything to give him a chance to succeed. Put him on the first powerplay unit. That’s the cheapest way to add a 20-goal scorer to this lineup.

Because the alternative won’t be good. Just look at the last time they (over)reacted and made a trade to fill the big hole on defense.

What does this team need more of right now, Erik Gudbranson or Jared McCann?

And before you point out his poor start in Florida this year, keep in mind two things:

  1. He’s been buried at the bottom of lineup with fourth line plugs.
  2. Despite that, he’s still fifth on the Panthers with 1.2 primary points per 60 minutes.

Coincidentally enough, that’s good enough to also be fifth on the Canucks.

RECENT GRAPHIC COMMENTS

  • Killer Marmot


    There’s no strategy. There’s no logic. There’s no milestones. No metrics, checkpoints or structure.


    How would GC know this? He presumably does not work in the Canucks organization. Has he talked to employees to determine this?

  • Yay, more opportunities to shred crappy writing on Canucksarmy!

    “Well, because the new shiny object now is the elusive 20-goal scorer.”

    Benning was looking for a 15-20 goal scorer after signing Eriksson but before the season started. See the interview from *AUGUST 5TH*: “…But we would like to try to add an experienced 15-20 goal scorer, if we could, going into the season.”

    http://www.todaysslapshot.com/nhl-news/benning-still-talking-teams-potential-trades/

    I understand why you don’t think that there isn’t any planning. Because you don’t bother doing your homework. Which is a pretty lousy trait for a planning expert.

    “That’s on top of Biega (who is apparently too valuable to risk losing on waivers)”

    Hey Planning Expert, so which Canuck defenceman is currently available to be exposed for the expansion draft? (Crickets). Right, no one. Ok, which defenceman is closest to the minimum game threshold? (More crickets). It’s Biega.

  • Killer Marmot

    One of GC’s main points is that the Canucks “overshot” in the rebuilding of the defense, causing, apparently, all sorts of problems.

    Oooookay. But who knew that Stecher would be play as well as he has? Who knew if Tryamkin would work out? Is management supposed to be prescient?

    Even when management is successful they get criticized. Tough crowd in Vancouver.

    • Dirty30

      Um, the guys who scouted and drafted Stecher and Tryamkin?

      Yes, Management is exactly supposed to be prescient!

      I can forgive Vanessa wanting to draft Brendan Morrison because she thought he was cute and she was only in grade 3!

      But I would expect a higher level of due process in selecting players and evaluating where they are in their development from management.

      Should it be a surprise to the Canucks that a n NCAA D man might be NHL ready given the success of Tanev and Hutton coming out of college programs?

      They can send Sbisa down and no one will claim him. Probably Larsen too.

      Or they can send down Hutton and Stecher and play the depth they have.

      • Killer Marmot

        If you know a scout who can watch kids play in juniors or college — or some club in the Urals — and know with 100% certainty whether they will work out in the NHL then the Canucks should hire him and pay him a million bucks a year. But that probably won’t be enough, because other clubs will offer him two million, maybe three.

        There’s an 80% chance a first-round draft pick will have an NHL career. 45% for second rounders. 30% for third rounders. If a scout can turn those odds into 100% he deserves all the money you can pay him. But you needn’t worry about that, because no such scout exists. Every prospect is a crap shoot.

        Let’s be realistic about our expectations of what any management is capable of.

        • Dirty30

          You’re right — I didn’t write my comment very clearly and it expresses an unrealistic expectation on management, scouts etc.

          I will say this instead — Benning once said that in Boston they figured to need 8 guys on D to make it through the season. He was very surprised that in the West you may need 10-12 guys and therefore started to plan for that kind of depth.

          Within that planning, one could reasonably expect that you would need guys who could be called up and sent down without causing waiver problems.

          Equally, given the number of new players on D this year, one could reasonably expect that some would play better than expected and others not so much, and that management would have a reasonable plan in place for that contingency. And again, that that specific plan would not involve waiver issues or contract specifics (eg; Tryamkin).

          One could therefore reasonably expect that management had specific plans and contingencies in place for most outcomes, and a ‘logjam’ at D would not be unexpected or unforeseen.

          It’s like a business saying “Well, we never expected to be this successful!” so we don’t have a plan for it.

    • Whatthe...

      Exactly what I was thinking when I read this article. If management had done nothing and thrown Stecher and Tryamkin to the wolves this year, the writer would have produced the exact same article but with examples of how management is damaging prospect development, etc.

      Unfortunately, we are in the “post-truth” era where click volume is more important than accurate reporting and/or critical analysis. Benning doesn’t outwardly fawn over analytics so this site has chosen to attack regardless of reality. The Canucks use analytics so can we all move on and stick to honest writing.

  • Killer Marmot

    They traded for Larsen. They dragged Tryamkin over. They traded for Gudbranson. They signed Stecher. They drafted Juolevi. That’s on top of Biega (who is apparently too valuable to risk losing on waivers), Pedan, and Subban. All that, while basically telling Dan Hamhuis, who probably has the best combination of skill, character and experience out of the bunch, to take a hike after jerking him around at the deadline.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

    Aren’t the Canucks supposed to be rebuilding? Haven’t the writers been lecturing us every day on the importance of dumping older players and starting from scratch?

    So management gets rid of a 33-year-old defenseman whose contract had expired in favour of some young blood. And this now is a bad thing?

    I am so confused.

  • DJ_44

    Firstly: this was a very well written post.

    That said, I don’t buy the premise of not having a plan.

    Rebuild …..from the goal out.

    What did they have…..Lack and Markstrom….ready for number 1…nope.. sign Miller to a three year deal…..decide between future..choose Markstrom…deal Lack…..and for the future…Draft Demko

    Defence was terrible last year. Bartowski and Weber were bad…they are out. Now..added Gudbranson, Larsen, Tryamkin, Stecher to Edler Tanev Sbisa Hutton ..and Biega (who I agree should be in Utica…but maybe they are thinking of the expansion draft)… The D-corps is now a strength… the total cost of a complete turaround?? McCann (who I think will be a good middle 6 forward…but not this year)..a 2nd and a 5th (for Larsen). Pretty good value.

    Short term scoring is currently and issue, but offensive chances have been there but not converted. I also agree with your solution…get Louie going…get Baerschi going……

    That said … having defensive depth is never bad….it provides trade options (assets) to deal for other needs…

    This year they have been a competitive team most nights. None of their wins have been in games where it would be considered “undeserved”……on the other hand ….Three of there losses: Edmonton home and Montreal and Ottawa away, deserved a better result.

  • Bud Poile

    Re:graph

    I agree with the blowing and sucking part but the blowing and sucking is not coming from Benning.

    Hamhuis is 34 in a month.He controlled his destiny at the trade deadline,would not go to Chicago(bless his heart) and Dallas took Russell.Loved Dan’s game and contribution but,again,35 years old next year.Hello Bieksa.

    Speaking of jerking,McCann was a cancer stick,a dick.They got rid of him because they didn’t like his attitude or his personality or his sucking at face offs.Pick one,two or three and try to overcome your McCann crush.

    Your analytics colleagues in Florida should be the only ones fawning over his one goal now.

    When it comes to trading a d-man I will take Lidster’s and Benning’s opinions and analysis over yours.

    One year and a bit into a rebuild and the “jerking around” isn’t coming from Canucks management.

  • Not Dressed For Tonight's Game

    sigh. How many articles have CA written about this opinion? Lazy. how about some fresh content?

    you are preaching to the converted and just annoying the rest.

  • pheenster

    [skips Petbugs drivel and heads straight to the ensuing hilarity in comments section]

    You accumulate as many prospects on D as possible as in order to compete you need six really good ones. This is because teams are built (or rebuilt as the case may be) from the back end out. Anyone who knows the first thing about hockey knows this.

  • crofton

    @ Bud Poile re:graph…”Your analytics colleagues in Florida should be the only ones fawning over his one goal now.” – and they are, as evidenced by the author’s factually correct statement…”Despite that, he’s still fifth on the Panthers with 1.2 primary points per 60 minutes.” As I said. FACTUALLY CORRECT, but with ZERO context….as in….he has ONE goal! (as you said) But all that matters to the anal-ytics crowd is that 1.2 primary points per 60. Analytics has it’s place, but is just ANOTHER tool to determine a player’s worth, they don’t seem to care to acknowledge that.

  • Dan B

    With the benefit of hindsight, things could have been a little different. Stecher’s exceeded expectations, that’s for sure. But I think they didn’t want to depend on Biega and Pedan, and they didn’t know if Tryamkin and Larson would be NHL-grade.

    Without Gudbranson, and without knowing how Stecher would turn out, the right side looks pretty weak… Tanev, then Larson, then Tryamkin. Two guys who’s NHL careers were (are) pretty uncertain.

    But if we could turn back the clock after seeing Stecher, then it would have made a ton of sense to pass on Gudbranson and resign Hamhuis for a few years until Juolevi is ready to take his spot.

    Edler-Stecher
    Hutton-Tanev
    Hamhuis-Tryamkin

    With Sbisa and Larson as spares.

    • DJ_44

      Yes…this is hindsight.

      Juolevi…as it is …will take over Edler’s role….

      Tryamkin’ ceiling (gawwwd I’m using analytics terms!)…keeps rising…..it is certainly better than bottom two….

      …in general I agree with your assessment of the defensive situation ….the Plan. , was Executed (Do) , and has turned out better than expected (Check) …..and now the can ReAct to options that present themselves…..

      Hey Petbugs…..GMJB must be reading the same management journals as you!

  • TD

    I agree with the majority of the posts, just because GC doesn’t like the plan doesn’t mean the Canucks don’t have one.

    Benning inherited the twins who were starting a four year contract that the previous management had signed. They are too good and proud to tank, but almost impossible to move as a pair because of the 14 million dollar cap hit. That’s if they wanted to be traded as they have a no movement clause.

    I love the twins and don’t want them to be traded. I want them to end their career as Canucks and to remain in Vancouver afterwards. While I think the Canucks need a full rebuild, I don’t think it can fully occur until after the twins retire. In the mean time, having the twins teach the kids what being a professional means will only benefit those players in the long run and hopefully help the Canucks avoid the 10 year Edmonton type of rebuild.

    GC criticizes Benning for his acquisition of too many defensemen instead of praising him that all his moves in this area were relatively successful. Wouldn’t the fact that these moves were successful be a point for which to praise Benning? It’s left the Canucks in a pretty good place. They have too many defensemen at a time when they are in high demand.

    I like Canucks Army and I know it is a free site, but quit writing the same thing over and over.

  • The_Blueline

    I think we have to wait a bit before we say they don’t have a plan. But if they trade away any of their young defencemen for a the hope of a quick fix, oh boy will I agree with you.

    As to McCann, he has not spent his ToI with 4th plugs, but as a winger with a very talented rookie play maker who has almost 0.5ppg (Malgin).

    Still, I agree that this team dos not need Guddy. Maybe they can trade him for a forward better than McCann?

  • Beefus

    If Benning wasn’t so impatient we’d have Gustav Forsling as a foundation defenceman . That would have allowed us to keep McCann, draft Tkachuk instead of Juolevi and our rebuild would have been much further along.

    Edler/Stecher
    Forsling/Tanev
    Hamhuis/Tryamkin

    Hutton

    • crofton

      Except we haven’t seen anywhere, anyone claiming Forsling is the player Juolevi is supposed to develop into. And if you really wanted Tkachuk. I don’t. In 3 Young Stars games he got 2 spearing penalties to go along with a variety of others, one of which was a crosschecking penalty, which was actually 3 or 4 for the price of one….when the player was prone on the ice. He missed Hartley’s term in Calgary but that’s the regime that drafted him….in the mold of all the other knuckle draggers they either have or have had. No thanks.

    • Bud Poile

      Let’s just dismiss the Clendenning/Bonino for Sutter part and the fact that Troy Stetcher has three points in his first nine NHL games.Troy logged 22+ minutes last game,second only to Edler.

      Forsling looks good but his 4 points in 16 games is not Calder or Norris material.Add to that fact Stetcher is playing first line minutes against the league’s top lines in his first games as an NHL rookie while Forsling plays the 3rd pairing,logging under 15 minutes last night paired with 4-time NHL All-Star Campbell.

      McCann was not going to remain a Canuck for reasons you don’t seem to understand or accept.

      How can you-or anybody-say that if Benning kept Forsling we would now have Sutter,Juolevi or Stetcher ? Hindsight is a perfect fantasy.

      So,we have Sutter,Gudbranson,Sbisa,Joulevi,Stetcher and Tryamkin -all Benning pieces.

      Moving on…..

  • Burnabybob

    You know what overreacting and overshooting is?

    This article.

    Rebuilding a hockey team isn’t like remodeling your home, where you can simply buy the materials you need and get to work. Very often you don’t know what you have. How good is Stecher going to be? Tryamkin? Hutton? Juolevi? Gudbranson? Are any one of them going to be Norris trophy candidates? Are some of them going to wash out of the NHL? Nobody knows for sure. In any case, it’s always better to have more prospects than fewer. And if they end up with an abundance of NHL-calibre defensemen, then they can make a trade for a winger or a center. If one or more of them busts, then they have other options.

    Benning obviously thought Juolevi was the best player available. And as a GM, that’s who you have to pick. It seems they had Pierre-Luc Du Bois as their first choice, but Columbus picked him.

    At the very least, it looks like the Canucks now have a decent defensive foundation, and at least one very good goaltending prospect. Their priorities are now clear- first line center and left winger who can score.

    In three years the team will bare no resemblance to the one that made the finals in 2011. Looks like a rebuild to me.

  • Locust

    The unmitigated 14 year-old girl hate for everything Canucks from the writers here is almost as sad as when someone tries to be funny and isn’t. Both examples can be viewed in this article

    I really don’t know what you guy’s “issues” are and none of us can figure out what your “agenda” is but this is really strange (and not in a good way.)

    Maybe we (the readers and commenters) should have a contest and try to figure out what is really going on here.

    80% of you “thespians” would be run out of town on any other teams site.

    You all need a Snickers….except Vanessa – she is awesome.

  • OMAR49

    Glad to see that GC sat down with Canuck management and had them explain what their plan for the club was. He did sit down with them didn’t he? Or, did he simply listen to a bunch of rumors (many outdated and most verging on gossip) and came to the conclusion that management doesn’t know what it’s doing by adding 1 + 1 and getting 7.

  • TheRealPB

    I think the management mishandled both Vrbata and Hamhuis (see both of their play this year, you should have been able to get something for them). I don’t think they were “jerked around” but I do think they should have gotten us something.

    But as I’ve said repeatedly here, it’s not that there is no plan, it’s that you don’t agree with the plan. That’s two different things. There are (many) things you can quibble with (I’d say Virtanen’s lack of development is another one) but it’s hard to say that the Canucks have “overshot” strengthening the D. We are better in terms of prospects but we still aren’t where a good NHL team should be. The fact that we have some decent prospects and current players on D and G and far fewer on F is the reverse of the context that the Leafs and Oilers are dealing with, for example.

    Trying to portray McCann’s struggles as the opposite because he’s scoring “primary points” at a high rate is…creative at best.

    • Dirk22

      not quite on the Leafs and Oilers. Although they are stronger with their forward prospects they still have young d either on their roster or coming up.

      Leafs have Reilly who’s 22, Carrick who’s 22, Zaitsev who’s 24 all on their roster…I won’t even mention you know who to save everyone a freak out. Even Marincin and Gardiner are young.

      Coming up they have Nielsen – 6’3 and was a point per game in the WHL last year. They have Dermott who’s a first rounder – played for Canada Jrs last year.

      I won’t do the Oilers but they still have Nurse, Klefbom on their roster. Paigin and Bear coming up.

      Are the Canucks d prospects better than these groups?

      • AnotherPB

        I think you’re right on Zaitsev (like Stetcher a FA acquisition) and definitely Reilly, but overall guys like Valiev and Dermott are no better than Pedan. They don’t really have a D with the same potential of a Juolevi and for the most part their current D have looked as pedestrian as ours (I’d say worse by turnovers). And are you really trying to suggest that the Oilers D prospects are better than ours? Nurse and Klefbom have been erratic and inconsistent at best.

        Why do you keep insisting that the Leafs and Oilers direction is so much better than ours? I have no idea if the Canucks rebuild will be successful and all indications are that it will be a lot worse before it gets any better. But I have no idea why the Oilers and Leafs get so much credit for being on the right track when they have (marginally) succeeded in drafting good players at the top of the draft where they should (first overalls and top fives) and have for the most part completely whiffed on almost everyone else.

        • Dirk22

          Do you think Juolevi has the same potential as Reilly? You could argue he does but at the very least it’s close. They’re both #5 picks. Reilly had some pretty big stats in junior. He’s bigger than Juolevi. There’s no reason to think Juolevi is necessarily better than Reilly and we should all be thrilled if he gets to his level. Reilly is a really good player. Do you think the Leafs would trade Reilly for Juolevi?

          This came up because the commenter inferred while the Leafs and Oilers have better forward prospects, we have a stronger goalie and d prospect pool. While the first part is correct and we have Demko as a goalie prospect, I don’t think the defence prospect pools are really differentiated – if you include the young guys already playing (Stetcher, Nurse, Reilly). We have some good prospects here but so do they. You could argue for one over the other but you can’t argue for our forwards over there’s – that’s the point.

          Nurse and Klefbom have maybe been erratic but who are our comparable? Tryamkin and Stetcher? Sorry but no GM is making that trade either.

          I’ve never given the Oilers credit for their rebuild. They have benefited from a lot of luck as we all know. Their rebuild was a disaster because of incompetent management. Sound familiar?

          The Leafs on the other hand have added a ton of young players/prospects to their group since Shanny came on board (which is when he took them out of the cycle of ‘trying to compete’). They’ve had 20 draft picks the last two years – they have the highest scoring trio of rookies in decades and you’re saying they’ve whiffed? It’s totally unsubstantiated. We’ve had 13 picks in the last two years. The Leafs have basically had one more draft than us! Not hard math to see who’s going to hit on more picks. They’ve also acquired guys like Kapanen, Leipsic who are over a point per game players in the AHL.

          It’s been stated and overstated on here. People on here can direct their anger at the messenger but that’s not going to fix anything. Either Benning goes or he starts realizing that the twins are gone in a couple years and if you think things are bad now – just wait.

  • Frogger84

    The trick with journalism is that in order to do it well you have to do something called “legwork”. So, if you’re going to take a position that there’s no process you would interview Jim Benning and ask him what the process is, and then provide that interview to readers. Then you would check with a couple of secondary sources within the organization to test whether what Jim told you in the interview was being implemented or not.

    The fact that the basic journalistic legwork hasn’t been done here indicates that (a) the author is lazy; (b) the author is a ” nobody” who can’t get an interview with Benning: (c) the author has so little involvement with the Canucks that he has no credible secondary sources; (d) all or some combination of the above.

    I could even draw a neat little Venn diagram of your journalistic failings and identify the intersection as Graphic Comments. See how easy criticism is?

    Could this site go back to meaningful and well-researched analytics pieces instead of uninformed op-ed?

  • KCasey

    There has been so much talk of not putting the boot to Hamhuis and Vrbata at the deadline for ‘value’ as you would call it. But what about moral and professional value. Canucks are regarded as one of the classiest and professional organizations in all of sports for the way they conduct themselves and interact with people, players, staff and obviously the community included. How does it look to other players and organizations around the leauge if we were to completely disregard players opinions and lives just for the sake of being business savy. Sometimes being a good human being translates to better things down the road. Does Miller sign here if he has hunch that were gonna bend him over another teams knee at the first sight of a 2nd or 3rd round pick. Probably not. What about Erickson? Stetcher? There is a time to be calculated and ruthless in business but you gotta avoid doing it at every turn or people stop dealing with you.

    As to the point of Mcann being 1.2 Primary per 60. This doesnt mean a dam thing in the grand scheme of how hockey actually works. He has a decent ceiling no doubt, but so did Evander Kane. So did Zack Kassian. Sometimes players attitudes and personalities get in the way of there success down the road. If an analytics team ran a NHL franchise they wouldnt fair any better than a team ran with zero analytics invloved. Dont get me wrong, I love stats and number crunching but its just one part of a very massive machine. A machine that is ran by hundreds of people and has been developed over a 100 plus years of research and hands on training through professionals that both played the game and followed it religiously.

    • Dirk22

      Are we really at this point now? Justifying Benning’s incompetence because he’s a good human being. He’s a GM of a professional sports team. That has to rank as the most ridiculous defence I’ve ever seen on here and that’s saying a lot. Teams flip players for picks every year….its not a new or rarely used concept that keeps players away.

      Question: if Benning is such a draft guru why is he selecting McCann who everyone on here seems to think is a problem child? Should we be concerned with this? I mean he’s drafted Gaudette who loves to tweet about his love for Trump and signed Megna who is very clever with his #Sedinsister hashtags. Is Benning a poor judge of character after all?

      • KCasey

        Im not exactly defending Benning so much as the history of the Canucks in general. Benning does have class all the same though. He also isnt nearly as incompetant as you and others are somehow convinced of either. He inherited a slow sinking ship and has done a decent job keeping things in tact while building it back up. Ill be the first to admit he should have kept and/or added more draft picks in the trades he did make but thats my only real beaf thus far. He did however add to already solid goaltending, made monumental leaps on defence even after losing Hamhuis in free agency. The only loses we took on our front end have been Vrbata who didnt do much production wise last year and only took up ice time from our younger guys. We swapped Sutter for Bonnino. Dropped old man Higgins. And traded Mcann who is still not ready to really add to the production of an NHL club anyways….oh ya and suck it up and accept the fact he is a jerk off who irritates teammates and coaches. I also wont even begin to compare Mcanns attitude and character in his daily dealings with people in person to someones political views and another persons hashtags…if thats how you compare people than your ignorance is the greatest ive ever seen on here….and that is saying a lot as you would put it.

        To comment on your only real point of value as to how many teams trade players for picks every year, this is true. However more often than not its players who havent been with the team long term or they dont have trade clauses. So while I can see the point your are making in needing to be a hardnosed GM, that shtick only works for so long before players and other GMs give you the finger and walk away. So while I would be just fine with pulling the trigger on the odd value trade here and there, im tired of hearing the trade Miller for picks, trade Burrows for picks, trade Hansen for picks, Sbisa, Edler and the list goes on…hell why dont we just trade everyone older than 26 for picks and draft a whole new team. Its not like players care about there lives, and plus young players dont need leaders and role models to show them how to be professionals. Lets do that rebuild model. Cause it sounds great and the analytics community say the numbers will make it work…so its gotta work right?

        • Dirk22

          I was being facetious about McCann, Gaudette etc. People are making a big deal of McCann’s character issues when there’s really not much there to go on. What did he actually do? Was he too cocky or not nice to media? Sounds a lot like Kesler to me – you know, one of the top 5 centres this team has had in its 40+ years.

  • sloth

    I don’t want to make ridiculous inferences about the internal machinations of the Graphic Comments organization, but maybe Petbugs does have a plan, because he managed to show me a whole lot of LIQUOR DEPOT logos as I upvoted all the criticism…

    What an awful awful article. I’ve been coming to this site regularly since the 2013-14 season, but rarely comment. This article was so bad I had to finally register to add my voice to this chorus of complaints.

    This whole thing is predicated on completely baseless, and frankly asinine, assumptions and accusations. I have always valued the critical tone of articles on CA because they help us readers make better informed opinions. But to publish an article like this, that devalues the apparent positive outcome of these moves to criticize the author’s purely imaginary perception of the organization’s plan is a laughable logical fallacy. Petbugs, I hope you’re just trolling, because this is embarassing work.

    And I am absolutely disgusted by the shameless abuse of analytics to keep flogging the dead horse that is the McCann deal. He’s also sporting a positive corsi and a relative positive fenwick, and he’s only shooting 5% with a PDO that may be due to regress positively… but with 3 pts through 16 gp none of these stats are of any real value to anyone.

    But since you asked: “What does the team need more of right now?” Considering the other 22 guys on the Canucks roster didn’t want to play with McCann and his garbage attitude, I’d say Gudbranson. If I could go off the board, I’d say neither, but how bout a healthy Anton Rodin or Jannik “20-Goal-Scorer” Hansen?

    Hmmm… speaking of reactionary logic… if we had 2 more injured D-men and a healthy forward corps, what would this article look like?

  • TrueBlue

    I know GC can be a bit… inflammatory at times, but I thought the article made a lot of good observations and brought up some intertesting points.

    I think sometimes peeps reading see a critical article and lump the general observations together, labeling it as redundant. But GC has been looking at mgmt with a critical eye for ages, and despite the overarching disappointment he expresses (perfectly entitled to his opinion, and the results aren’t exactly disagreeing with him), there are some cutting but poignant insights in there.