WWYDW: Instant fixes for the Canucks and your preferred next coach

Welcome back to WWYDW, the only hockey column on the internet to never get it twisted.

Speaking of not getting it twisted…don’t! This particular column is not calling for the head of head coach Bruce Boudreau. We don’t have that power here at WWYDW, and if we did, we promise that we’d use it for good.

But…come on. We all know that it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. The writing is on the wall, and it clearly states that “Jim Rutherford and Patrik Allvin have already decided to replace Boudreau as head coach of the Vancouver Canucks.”
At this point, it’s less a question of “if,” and more a question of “when” and “where.”

However the firing occurs, we expect it to be a controversial one. Boudreau is beloved in Vancouver, and anyone stepping into his shoes is going to find them mighty difficult to fill.

But if a Boudreau firing is inevitable, just as inevitable is the fact that someone will have to replace him.

So, who will it be?

Various names have already been floated around; Rick Tocchet, Andrew Brunette, and even Barry Trotz.

But who cares what other folks are saying?

Today, we want to get you on the hiring case, so we are asking you:

Let it be known in the comment section.

Your instant fixes are below!

There isn’t one singular move. That’s the lesson here. Since the Canucks lost in 2011, the dominant ideology of this club has been that there’s a quick fix — that’s why so many prospects were given up, bad contracts taken on.

4-5 years away (a guess) with patient building. Do nothing short-term that disrupts that.

Agree with Wilson, but the question is ONE move. Trade Horvat while his value is off the charts. Get back a non-protected first round pick for 2023, and a blue-chip defensive prospect, preferably RHD. You have to live with the Miller extension and EP40 should never be going anywhere. That will go a long way to securing a fix.

My single move is actually a directive that needs to come from ownership.

An organizational hard rule that does not allow for any trades or signings that only improve the team short-term, at least until they are banging on the door for the Stanley Cup.

Not practicing this rule over the past 6+ years is what’s gotten them in all this mess in the first place.

This answer probably isn’t what was intended with the question, but the one single thing the Canucks should do is build a five-year strategic plan. This means accepting a step back for a couple years after this season to put together the foundation of a young core and prospect pool. This doesn’t have to be a full-on tank, but it does mean the team has to shift from tinkering each year and properly construct a roster.

GMs, like politicians, far too often make moves based on their tenure and not for the best long-term benefit. I know people love to blame Benning for the current plight of the team. He was not a good GM, but he was constantly being pushed to put the Canucks in the playoffs right away. He made a lot of bad decisions, many premised on short-term objectives. I don’t think much has changed.

One move I would make immediately is to trade Brock Boeser. His cost-benefit analysis is terrible. The Canucks have enough forwards; he isn’t needed in the top-six and really doesn’t make it better. Losing his salary provides some breathing room on the cap to financially allow the Canucks to make better long-term decisions.

The one move would be a change in management’s short-term focus on the current situation to a long-term plan to changeover most of the roster by 2024-25, while building a prospect pool to continually add to the team from then on.

Player-recycling should be the focus, not a ‘core’ that a team is stuck with for years. As players get expensive, they get traded for younger players and picks maintaining an improving roster that is well under the cap to take advantage of other teams locked into expensive contracts.

The single best move the Canucks can make is to trade Miller. This would be both impactful and symbolic. Impactful, because it would create long-term cap flexibility, bring back some assets. Symbolic, because it would show that management can acknowledge a mistake and fix it, and it would signal that they recognize that this team is not ready to compete.

Form an actual long-term plan. Ridiculous that I have to use my answer on that.

If to fix means this year and short-term success: Do not play Tyler Myers…ever.

There is only one move for this team: BLOW IT UP.

One move?

Retire Rutherford.

His completely classless public denunciation of a 600-win coach, and his re-signing of a 30-year-old forward to an over-priced, overly-lengthy contract extension, show that Mr. Rutherford is not fit for his current position.

Unfortunately, previous and now present management have handcuffed this team so that there is no single move possible. Which, again, is unfortunate, as they would have to be the most creative and lucky to be rid of or trade the kind of talent they have with the AAV that comes with that particular talent. I’ve only seen one team ever rid themselves of “untradeable” contracts without having to give up much, and that’s Toronto, so the possibility of Vancouver doing it is zero. They would have to give up so much when they have so little.

There isn’t a quick fix. It seems like ownership has this moronic mentality that there is a quick fix — it’s been 10 years since the Canucks iced a solid team. I don’t think the quick fix route has been working.

Moves? Talk to Miller and ask him if he’d be OK with a trade. I’d only deal him if he’s ok with it, otherwise you run the risk of deterring players from signing here. Then I’d deal him for a first and high-end prospect (maybe a bit more, he is still a player).

I am also moving out Horvat. A high-end prospect and a first for him.

From there I am looking at moving Myers, as teams are running into injury problems and he might be a target.

I’m also seeing what I can get for Demko. If I can get a high-end prospect and a first along with something else, I am making that move.

I’d like to deal Boeser, Garland, Schenn, Burroughs, and Kuzmenko as well.

Essentially, I’m keeping a few vets, 40, 43, 92, and a few other young guys.

I am not saying all these guys would go, unless you get very good offers. You should definitely get some big offers on a few of these guys and they must go.

Time to re-stock the prospect pool and get some cap space. This season is a write-off and even if we crawl into playoff contention, this team isn’t close to contending.

One move that may be able to make a difference would be for management (and the fan base) to realize that the core is rotten. The bottom-six is not the problem. Most are young with room to grow or at least keep their head above water while making near league minimum.

One move I wouldn’t make would be to deal Schenn for a middle round draft pick. His all-round game is more suited for a bottom-pairing role, but he has played way above and beyond his salary and our expectations. In fact, if Horvat is traded this season, I would slap the ‘C’ on Luke. Who do you want to turn this group in to a respectable team, Luke or one of the soft skill guys with warts in their game?

The single move I would make is to make the owners accountable as to why this club has been less then mediocre for the last ten years.

One singular move…Yikes!

Ok, how’s about hire Barry Trotz on a six-year contract and give him ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on who plays, who sits and who gets shipped out, and what types of players he wants on his squad.

This is a coach who will structure the hell out the Canucks. Yes, please.

I feel it’s either a move involving Myers/Horvat. I’ll go with Horvat going to Columbus just because of rumours. I’m thinking Horvat in some sort of trade for a combination of centres, perhaps Boqvist, or draft picks. Sillinger and Jenner come to mind, but I think Columbus is pretty high on him. Canucks will have to eat some cap space this season.