What is the main reason for the Canucks to be in the position they are currently are in?

[Meds]

The real fuck up , it turns out, was not doing it sooner so we could've hung onto Horvat instead.

Is that the "main reason"? Would Horvat made enough of a difference if he were still here?

No. Horvat would not have carried the team the way Miller did. Bo is producing at 1.0 PPG for the first time in his career this season.....he was a 2C with 1PP bumper capability.

[2Fingers]

Interesting on the management take.

I expected Demko to be hurt, I expected Chytil to be hurt but I assumed the team would score by committee and that the D would make up for the Demko/Chytil injuries.

I assumed a playoff team with the current D and Lankinen and Demko coming and going throughout the season.

[Hockey Widow]

I think A tandem of Horvat and Pettersson, in hindsight, would have been a better option. There were signs early on that Miller’s personality was an issue, or could become one. There were also numerous antidotes about tension between him and Horvat . I know, nothing substantiated.

But when former players come out with stories…..

Miller was at his height back then. The return on him would have been substantial. But all of this is hindsight. I would have been choked had they traded him as would most fans have been. So no easy answers in real time. Except that management would have had all the inside scoop.

The way management treats employees and players when they want to move on from them is deplorable. The BB fiasco, the ending for Horvat and I’m sure other examples.

The way Rutherford uses the media and spouts off is disgraceful. A simple statement, “ Quinn Hughes will not be traded. We intend to do everything in our power to extend him come July 1st” would go a long way. But these leaks and fostering the rumours in one of their MOs. For gawds sake, if they are trading him do it before he gets hurt!!

[Ronning's Ghost]

Ownership not greenlighting a proper rebuild any of the times it has been necessary in the past dozen or so years.

(allegedly)

[Hockey Widow]

Trevor was right.

[Cornuck]

I assumed a playoff team with the current D and Lankinen and Demko coming and going throughout the season.

I think that was a majority position around here before the season started, and likely what management was thinking/planning.

[Lancer]

Trevor was right.

Yup, that he was. Doubtful he would have allowed the Miller trade in the first place, but then we get into 'what if?' history there.

Ownership keeps trying to shortcut the timeline and it keeps coming back.

[rikster]

Mëds trading Miller is turning out to be a blessing in disguise. We definitely got the best of him and his game has tanked this year to the point he isn't even playing center full time for the rags.

The real fuck up , it turns out, was not doing it sooner so we could've hung onto Horvat instead.

Who got the best of the Horvat for Raty & Hronek today leans Horvat although with 7 years age difference and not knowing Raty's celing it's too early to judge who won the trade...

I'd say it started when the team traded for Ekman Larsson and then had to make some moves with cap considerations in mind...

[theman]

Yeah, I would agree that the OEL trade was the start of this entire mess. The trade not only was unnecessary but is still hurting the team with cap penalty and loss assets.

[Cornuck]

The gift that keeps on giving.

At least we got Garland out of it.

[Ronning's Ghost]

...the Canucks may have picked a good time to rebuild.

An interesting point, and another strong argument for why the Canucks should have been deep in re-build mode in 2015.

If deep rebuild means trading the Sedins and not fumbling Hamhuis, then that could have made a difference. But at the end of the day, it wasn't the ticky tack "retool" moves (Beer Cheese, Granlund, etc.) that made a meaningful difference. (Even turning Bonino into Sutter instead of true futures wasn't that big of a deal though turned out as bad as it could). It was whiffing on 3 of 5 top 10 picks in 6 years and losing the McCann trade. And even then, the Canucks might have rebuilt into a steady consistent team had their "good" players not have brought a bad (or at least not good) ethic to the table and had they not shot themselves in the foot on a guy like Tanev.

I beg to differ, sir !

But the question is not relevant to Canucks News N Notes 26-27. This was the most relevant unlocked topic I could find.

While it is undeniable that "whiffing on 3 of 5 top 10 picks in 6 years and losing the McCann trade" didn't help, embracing the half-assed re-tool on the fly was underlying philosophy that drove most of the unforced errors, and -- to my point about timing -- meant that none of the picks were as high as they should be.

I don't know of any way the Sedins get traded, and there's reasons to keep them around in a re-build, anyway, so let's set that to one side. But as to timing and draft position, Ryan Miller was if fact, as I argued at the time, a pretty good goalie. And as I argued at the time, a rebuilding team doesn't want a goalie who's stealing them and extra 10 points a season. Nor do they want any other players who can help "now" (then) in preference to any assets that will bring more, later.

So, with particular reference to the Canucks' future chances of drafting DuPont, (and Schultz or Pue), the Canucks should very much have been in on the McDavid lottery, not fighting hard for the glory of a first-round bounce. (No disrespect to Boeser.)

[Ronning's Ghost]

...the Canucks may have picked a good time to rebuild.

An interesting point, and another strong argument for why the Canucks should have been deep in re-build mode in 2015.

If deep rebuild means... not shot themselves in the foot on a guy like Tanev.

this and keep Horvat over JT..
JT would have brought a Hughes-esq type of haul at the time. Even if Hughes leaves in the end, we are WAY farther ahead with 8-10 assets over the 4

While agree with you, that's a whole 'nother era of mistakes. OTOH, it's a better fit for this topic thread.

If we're re-hashing those poor decisions, then clearly selling high on EP40 would also have put them way ahead of where they are now.

As it is, I found the analysis of Drance on the podcast dangler linked about what the Canucks could reasonably hope to recover for Pettersson at this point to be depressingly convincing.

[Todd Bersnoozi]

I'd say it started when the team traded for Ekman Larsson and then had to make some moves with cap considerations in mind...

Hmmmm... I dunno. I remember when we made the deal, I was uncomfortable with taking on all that salary; it was not just OEL as we had to shell out money for Garly too. Having $13M available in cap space would have went a long way in keeping BoHo53 or Lindholm. I always felt OEL was showing signs of being on the decline even in Arizona, if JB was patient, OEL could have been had for cheap. Let someone else buy him out, then we sign him on the cheap like Florida/TO. If we kept that pick, would JB have taken D.Guenther? Not sure, JB did like taking guys who could rip the puck and Guenther can definitely do that. Not sure if JB was looking for another winger though, he really wanted a D-man, which is why he wanted OEL. He might have taken a centre like C.Sillinger.

That being said, OEL is showing he still have lots of gas in the tank. He's not a top calibre D-man like his prime days in Arizona, but he's still a capable top 4 who can hold his own. He was good enuff to play regular minutes for the Stanley Cup winning Florida Panthers, may have been TO's best D-man this past year and was recently an Olympian. The new mgmt just got rid of him after 1 bad season, despite the rumours that he was injured most of that year. One thing for sure, if JB was still around, he would have been more patient with OEL. Fun fact, if we kept OEL around and didn't buy him out, he'd be entering the final year of that deal.

At the end of the day, would OEL have made a difference in that 24 playoff run to beat the Oil and win the Cup? Prob not. Would his presence have been able to calm the locker room with the Petey/Millzy drama or keep Huggy around? Prob not. At the end of the day, not sure getting OEL or not getting OEL would have made a difference with that team, it was always going to fall apart sooner rather than later.

[Picker of Cherries]

OEL was really dumb. No way he should have been bought out. Tocchet hated him in Arizona and then in Vancouver and he wasn’t given time to recover from injury. It all points to poor evaluation by management and it’s been going on for years, (Miller over Horvat, Virtanen over Toffoli and Tanev).

Shit pro-scouting has been a big drag on the team’s success in the form of signing the wrong players (Desharnais, Kane, Heinen), not retaining the right players (Cole, Zadorov, Horvat, Toffoli) poor development assessment (Chatfield, Forsling, Podkolzin, Silovs, McCann) poor trade returns (Beauvillier, Chytil, Gudbranson, Reichel) and making overvalued/rushed signings that soon become negative tradable assets (Demko, Pettersson, Lankinen, DeBrusk, Boeser).

All leading to shit assets, last place in the league and thankfully new management.

[Tciso]

I am going to go with Topper's comment in "Do the Canucks need sign anyone else before the season starts?" thread, as the answer is the same.

We need "New Ownership". Aquaman looks more and more like Harold Ballard that I care to see.