He did and didnt, He was more on the point of making this team better, He was more on the point of we could bring this group back and see if they were the bruce team or we could go out and make calculated changes. This also does not account for guys like hoglander who might be getting larger contracts. the way drance talks he more comes from the point of they cant meaning it would be stupid to. I agree that it is financially possible but it was more of how he meant it as opposed to how he worded it.

If he didn’t mean it then he worded it very poorly. I wrote this while listening to him. He specifically mentioned 12 months as the time line and said they would have to make moves to keep the core together. He was criticizing the idea of keeping the core together, and one of his points was that they would have to make other moves and hard decisions anyways.

My AGM shows there are no hard decisions if your goal is to keep everyone and make no changes. In fact it is pretty easy as you can even overpay everyone

I guess the question is why should the Canucks keep this group together. Can they find better value instead of spending 17m on Horvat and Miller. I don't
The majority of teams are gonna be forced to dump cap, so it ain't going to be easy with so few buyers.

Yeah I agree with you. They should change things up. I also don’t think miller and Horvat actually come in at those numbers, but that’s the high end for both of them.

The main point was to show it is possible, even though Drance said on the radio today that it is not possible without cap dumps

they did end up saying that they could resign all the guys but it would just be kicking the can down the road, it would be causing problems for when petey gets a raise (proabably 80/8y) as well as pods and hogs if they were to give them big contracts or even bridge them. I think that for the most part all canucks fans can see the writing on the wall that keeping miller isnt the right move so I think that move alone will open up enough cap space to allow this team to be a true contender from 24-27

I think there is a path to keeping miller and Brock and Bo and still contending 24-27. I might make an AGM for it.

But I agree, keeping everyone is pointless. But the big hurdles are Myers, Dickinson, OEL, etc

K, first of all, Drancer is a slime ball, he tries to twist the truth to an extend he makes the Canucks tricky situation seem more grim than it actually is. He say the team shouldn't keep the core together, yet he never says blow things up, which I don't get at all

Now looking at your ACGM

1. Horvat and Miller aren't worth that much nor are they going to get that type of money on the open market

2. Hoglander needs to have a massive bounce back season next year to earn that type of bridge deal, and there are rumors he might need to spend some time in the minors

The question Drance is trying to pose is whether or not the team can keep the core together and be a legitimate contender together. I understand Drancer's skepticism on that front, but he fails to provide any meaningful solution, all he does is feebly try and forebode that the team will come up short somehow and I there is no reason for him to be that skeptical when management has yet to undergo their first off-season managing this team

He's right in that hard decisions will have to be made, but he has no proof or hard evidence to argue that there is no way for this team to build itself into a contender. Yes, it will be a difficult road getting there, but like I said, there is no evidence that it will be impossible

The team can keep at least most of the core together, but this ACGM is not an illustration of how to do so with optimal efficiency

Dickinson isn't a big hurdle, he could bounce back next season

Myers, Pearson, and Dickinson all come off the books when Petey is due for a raise, they aren't going to be kicking any can down the road in regard to that. Podz and Hogs won't be getting huge bridge contracts

I agree that at least one of Myers or OEL has to be moved, but one of them can stay. That pairing wasn't the reason the team missed the playoffs

I take everything I hear Drance say with a grain of salt. He's good at listing caveats to things, but for some reason, he can't come up with viable solutions to them. Smh from a journalist

I think Drance is trying to say that improving the team is going to involve moving cap dumps AND at least one of the core guys in order to improve the team, he just doesn't word it very well. It's frustrating I know

I intentionally over paid everybody considerably to really drive the point home: this core can be kept together.

Drance made 2 points today: the first was that the Canucks have to make cap dumps and creative trades in order to become a contender. This is true, as they need to upgrade certain player (Myers and Dickinson imo two most obvious) and that requires trading those players away first.

However, Drance went on to say that even if management was convinced the the Budreau bump is real and this team as is can be a contender, that in 12 months time they would still have to make difficult decisions in order to keep the core together. THIS is the part he got wrong. The team can easily run it back every year (even though they shouldn’t) without any buyouts or cap dumps or creative trades or hometown discounts or deals expiring. They can EVEN overpay everybody if they want to.

That is all I was trying to show with this AGM.

I hear ya. Even if the Boudreau bump wasn't real, this team is still playoff caliber, that's all that matters right now

I would dissagree with you, he isnt a canucks fan so he provides an outside look at the market. If you listened to yesterday's nucks hour drance says that they have more cap room than the FO has budgeted for

Thats all nullified if you move them all to create cap space

Because players will come after journalists if they propose trade ideas for them or if they say that a person should be fired

I would completely dissagree, I think that on aggrigate the canucks showed exactly what they were this year, a fringe team that might squeek in, and that isnt good enough and dont tell me "just get in you dont know what could happen." there will always be cinderella stories but that cant be the focus, and the cinderella stories that do win are teams who have been close for a while and very rarely is it a team out of nowhere.

That seems like a lot for a guy with a career high of 68 points.

his qo is 10.5m and he had 44 points in the last 35 games, that is a more reasonable valuation of petey, hes going to do better this next season, and to compound that he plays in all situation and stays out of the box

Matt Duchene had 44 points in his last 35 games too. Is he worth $10M? Forsberg, Thomas and Fiala all had 45 points. Are all these guys worth $10M? Long term decisions should never be made on a 1/3 season run.

BTW, Pettersson's 0:37 per game on the PK ranks 10th among Canucks forwards. Hardly an "all situations" guy.

he hasnt played on the PK the whole season, thats again a back half thing, and his play driving and creating are better than duchene. I know this is a small sample but this sample extrapolated over an entire season would lend himself to getting a deal of that magnitude especially with cap going up. he will be 25 when his current deal expires so 8x10 is a reasonable contract

It was during this time he started to play on the PK and averaged 1:12 putting him only beind miller, and horvat for pk deployment for all full time canuck forwards

Petey's QO is 8.85M. The rules with QO's is either the base salary of the final contract year or 1.15% of the AAV, whichever is lower. In Petey's case, the latter is the lower number

Nope, the core group of players will take steps in their game, and some of the players will bounce back. The Canucks didn't miss the playoffs due to lack of talent

It remains to be seen how that plays out