The Hockey PDOcast - The Vancouver Canucks deep dive with guest Sat Shah

Episode Date: October 26, 2022

Dimitri welcomes in Vancouver Canucks Insider from Sportsnet 650, Sat Shah. The two of them do a full deep dive on the Canucks and the 0-5-2 start to their season. This podcast is produced by Dominic Sramaty. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate. If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

dressing to the mean since 2050. It's the Hockey PEDEOCast with your host, Dmitri Filippovin. Welcome to the Hockey PEOCast. My name is Dmitra Filippovich and joining me here in studios, my good buddy, Satya Shah. What's going on, man? Yo, Dimitri, I'm good, man. Excited to be on your show. This time, you know, I got to say it's cool that we're doing it in studio here.

Yes. It's a more professional setting. I do miss us doing it over over a beer, though. Yeah, at the we work last year. Yeah. Well, you make your annual appearance here in the PEDAX now that we're officially coworkers, I feel like we can make this a more regular occurrence. 100%.

I'm down with that. Because I always love chatting with you, and it's awesome. Unfortunately, it feels like every time we get together, it's like under the most somber circumstances where we're just like, all right, here we go again. But that really is the case right now. I know. I mean, to some extent, you could probably just replay the conversations from a few years ago. Yeah, just slightly different names, but same things.

Probably the same thing. So coming into the year, I think it's safe to say there were elevated expectations for this Canucks group that they'd be competing for a playoff spot. you know, thanks in large part, they had a spirited effort down the stretch last year after Bruce Bujo took over. They were 32, 15, and 10, which was 11th best point percentage. And what I always say to people is I, you know, everyone talks a big game, especially in the offseason. It's like, all right, you know, we're going to be better this year. We have high expectations, high goals for this group.

So I always say you got to look at the actions rather than the words, right? Right. And you and I were talking before we went on air. I think it was pretty clear to me watching, just judging what the Canucks did this off season. that I think internally, they definitely had expectations to be competing for a playoff spot this season. 100%. Otherwise, you don't go and you spend $19 million on a luxury item like L.A.M.K.K.

You don't prioritize committing future capital into J.T. Miller, who's going to be 30 years old here, unless you think it's going to mean something in the present. That's not a move you're making for four years down the road. So it's pretty clear to me based on that that they thought fairly highly of themselves. We're two weeks into the season. Yeah.

And it feels like all that optimism has just dissipated immediately. Well, I mean, it's the same cast of characters having the same problems early in the season. And people are just sick and tired of watching the same movie early in the season. Coming in with hope and next thing you know, why are we underachieving? And it's the same thing again. And it's your best player is underachieving. The team looking discombobulated. And, you know, we always talk about can this team be greater than the sum of its parts?

They've been lesser than the sum of their parts. You know, and that's pretty astonishing to say about this team the last little while with how they've played, especially the start of the season. I mean, they shouldn't be 05 and 2 to start the season. You know what I mean? But they played that poorly. They look really bad. Their systems and their process has been horrible.

I mean, there's nothing you can really point to as a team play. They're doing this well outside of getting a few leads they haven't been able to hold on to. But they absolutely had an expectation to make the playoffs. And I think part of what they really were hoping for was be competitive this year, buy yourself a year and then maybe do more next year. But hey, but you can at least sell the hope of last year. and get people excited and maybe you buy yourself enough time to do some more things. And that's already blown up in their face.

So the calculation they made about, you know, we can get through this year and maybe we make the playoffs and we get people excited. And it gives us some time to maybe do some other things when the clock started ticking right away instead of buying yourself to the end of the season. Well, when you and I spoke last, it was like right towards the end of the Travis Green era, right? And it felt like everything was so doom and gloom. And then Bruce Boudreau comes in and we got. Bruce, there it is. It feels like everyone is, there was just like a sense of a sort of relief that like, all right, like, it's fun.

Hockey's fun again, right? Yeah. And I think there was a certain like high attached to that where it was like, all right, we want to like channel that and have more of that moving forward. Even it doesn't mean competing for a Stanley Cup, at least give people in the market something to like latch onto and be excited about for the future. And so I think teams can get into trouble when they're trying to walk that tight rope of like doing both things or keeping an eye on the future and not.

closing that door while also trying to like be competitive in the moment. And it seems like that's what they've unfortunately stumbled into here a little bit. They kind of have it. I think what you mentioned stumbling into it was it's probably what happened more than anything. Because I think that the desire was there to do more of this offseason. I mean, everybody's, they've said it themselves. Rutherford's admitted it. Alvina's admitted it as well that they want to do more with the defense.

They couldn't. They tried to make more trades. I mean, I've mentioned this before, but I've heard there was at least one instance where they felt they had a good trade and then no, they couldn't get the player to. wave and move and stuff like that. That stuff has gotten in their way. But ultimately, you have to find solutions. Your job in the National Hockey League,

whether you're a player, coach, or manager is get results. That's what you have to do. And you have to find a way to solve what's going on. It's only been 10 months on the job. But the fact that you're pressed up against it right away and people already asking questions. And it's fair to ask. When you've made $100 million in future commitments in one off season,

you've got skin in the game as a management team. So it's fair to ask, how much do you believe in this team? And honestly, if they could have found a way to move, say, OEL, I think they would have done it. If they could have found a way to move to, say, another higher paid forward, like, even better, had they got an offer they felt good about, they could have made, the calculation they made was, let's just re-sign them, let's hold on, and maybe the value changes and you can trade them later. And it's only seven games in. Right.

But I think already, it looks like maybe you made the wrong call on these guys. Maybe you can't trade these guys. and the same questions are arising again. Okay, let's go through those seven games. I'm going to set the scene here for those scoring at home. 05 and 2 minus 13 goal differential. Blue multi-goal leads in each of the first four games, I believe. The home opener on Saturday felt incredibly hopeless,

especially as the game went along. He got embarrassed by a 5-1 score. It was categorical embarrassment to the point where fans threw jerseys on the ice after the game or towards the end of the game. And the most recent game against the hurricanes, though, admittedly a far superior team who was playing game five of a five game road trip they go into that third period

tied at one. Within 90 seconds they give up two goals. In the first 10 minutes of that period they registered one shot on goal themselves and I think they had three by the end of it in the final 20 and it really felt like against that hurricane's forecheck like they couldn't even get the puck up to center ice

for large periods of time. It was it was dire. Yeah. So what we're going to do here today is is over the next hour hopefully talk about kind of what's gone wrong specifically and then what the next move should be. So where do you want to start this conversation? I'll give it to you as the because you're talking about this team on a daily basis. Yeah, well, let's start with the blown leads. Let's start with the process of getting those leads because there's been a lot of talk about,

hey, we're doing a lot of good things to get those leads and we played really well. And there are times, you know, you can look at the process and say it's been okay. But the thing that had me concerned, and I want to get your thoughts on this, especially when you go back and rewatch these games, Were they even full credit for those leads half the time? And how do those leads come to be? You could actually make the case, they got lucky with some of those leads. Yeah. And that's why it wasn't so easy to just say, hey, they'll win a bunch of games coming out of this

because they're due for victories now. If anything, you can say, this is how bad seasons happen, where the games you're supposed to win, you don't win. Yeah. And then the luck runs out and then you double lose. You know what I mean? Like it doesn't get made up for you. You know, as much as we talk about regression happening, the world's indifferent.

It doesn't owe you anything. Usually it bounces back. but if a few things go wrong and you don't take advantage of what should be the bounce back or what is preceding the dip, then you've kind of fallen that issue. And I had some concerns about those first four games, Dimitri, that the process was not as good as people have made it out to be. And if they continue doing what they're doing, it doesn't necessarily mean they're going to win games. Well, I think all of this ties together.

So follow me for this journey I'm going to take you on, right? Because typically we separate offense and defense from each other. They're happening at different ends of the ice. But for me, like watching those first. four or five games. I believe Quinn Hughes played all the way up until the Minnesota game and then he's missed the most recent couple games. Yes.

The sheer workload he had on his shoulders, both in terms of ice time where he was playing over 27 minutes a night. And in terms of it felt like he single-handedly needed to move the puck up the ice, because if he wasn't, no one else would. Yes. It's impossible to play that way consistently and successfully in today's game. Such a priority is placed on that transition component of it. And so when you have a team like the Canucks where all of a sudden, okay, if it's not

Quinn Hughes, it's not going to be Luke Shane. Yeah. It's not going to be Tucker Pullman who's in the lineup. It's not going to be Kyle Burroughs. It's not going to be any of these guys. Jack Ratholans giving them a bit of juice in that regard since he got into the lineup. But he has his own flaws. When that's happening, all of a sudden, there's an added emphasis on the forwards to all of a sudden come back deeper in their zone and have to do it themselves, come back. And when you can't play the type of game where the forwards can fly out of the zone and expect to get a pass consistently and they have to keep coming back for it, you can't play offensively that way in today's game because the other team. is going to get back in position,

establish their forecheck, and grind you down. And that's kind of what we're seeing. So I know the connects have scored some goals, but for the expectations I had for this team, acknowledging all their faults, I thought they'd be so much more lethal offensively. And it's been a grind, especially a 5-on-5 watching them create.

And I think that's in large part because without Hughes in the lineup, especially they don't have anyone that can consistently get the puck from point A to point B out of their own zone. And that's absolutely true. And the other part about that, too, is how Alvarek-Milarsin has struggled mightily

the season in terms of trying to get the puck up. And at least he provided some of that last year. That has really been absence from him. And you start wondering what that is, why that, why that is and how concerning that is. And we'll get to that. But to your point about how much deeper the forwards are coming back, there's so much effort just to get out of your own zone and get zone entries that you're almost exhausted, getting into the offensive zone in terms of trying to get set up and get the cycle going.

And you see it. You see other teams, they string passes together. They get offensive momentum. They have zone time. The Canucks are just trying to get one end. trying to get in, create a chance, maybe create chaos and maybe that leads to a goal or a bounce, that sustained pressure just doesn't happen. There's just so much pressure on your forwards coming back to create that.

And that, I kind of wonder, as much as we heard Alvin today say, the systems aren't the same, are the same. I don't know if they are. Because last year, there was more quick ups, a lot more 50-50 bucks. Throw it up and at least let your forward skate off for 50-50s. Maybe they win them. And it's not a sustainable way to win long-term and be a contender. But when you're having this much trouble getting out of your own zone, maybe that is the best way you can do things. And you go back to the beginning of last year, the Canucks also had a lot of

trouble because they were trying to be more controlled than how they came out of their own zone, more controlled about how they get set up in the next zone, and they just didn't have the capabilities. And they got worse. They play worse when they try to play that way. Which begs the question, what's the best way to play with this group? Maybe you can play. You can't play the the style that management wants in terms of having the structure you need and having the breakouts the way you want. Maybe these guys can't do that. But here's a problem. It's a double-edged sword. you have a blue line with so many issues. Yeah.

I agree with you. I think they'd be more successful if they were throwing the puck up for those 50-50s and trying to kind of embrace the chaos of what a hockey game can devolve into. Yeah. But when that happens, you have to trust your blue liners in terms of their foot speed to deal with what's coming back and the other way when you lose those 50-50 battles. And this looks like a team that's very uncomfortable doing so and honestly looking at the depth chart, understandably so.

For sure. And so then when you try to insulate yourself that way, you're making yourself even worse offensively and it's kind of like bleeding yourself dry in a way. Yeah, it's hard to come to the solution. It's all imperfect, right? It's finding the least imperfect one to find a way to win. And I guess the big elephant in the room around all this too is Thatcher Demko is not bailing them out.

You know, last year, at least Dempco was bailing them out a lot of nights and, you know, he's making credible saves. And he's made a lot of good saves. But he's not overcoming his environment when he was overcoming that environment last year. I want to defend Thatcher Demko. Not that you were, you were insulting him. But I have seen. And listen, like according to know,

evolving hockey, his minus 5.9 goals able to be expected is the worst than the league out of any regular goalie, right? He's got an 8, 76 percentage. These are numbers that are unfamiliar territory for a goalie that's been so rock solid throughout his energy career and someone we have expectations for to overcome that environment. I'm not buying those numbers in terms of them being reflective of his play. I think there's like an element of accumulation here where when you're giving up the degree of chances that they constantly are, there's like a degrading effect on a goalie, and that might not be being captured by the numbers, because for me, I look at it, he's faced 56 high danger shots against so far.

That's third most out of any goalie. The two goalies that have faced more are Krell of Amalka for the coyotes and James Reimer for the sharks. And those are arguably the two worst teams than the NHL. He has a 9-13-5-1-5% percentage, which is ahead of Vasilevsky, Gibson, Sorrows, Kemper. Like, a lot of goals against on the penalty kill, I guess you could say your goal. should be your best penalty killer, but we know that that's kind of more random and more fluctuating. And so a lot of poor multiple efforts in front of him, a lot of bad luck. Like some of those goals,

like the last one goes off his leg and in, right? Um, I think even the, the first goal, which is such a backbreaker of the third period against the Keynes where speaking of OEL, Seth Jarvis makes him look like he's basically not even on the ice, goes to the net. And then there's no second defensive effort to stop a tap in for Aho after that, right? And that's for a goalie. it's like what you make the first save, you kind of need a bit of help after that. Sure. And so I guess you could argue that,

okay, if Demco was playing at peak Demko performance, it would be papering over a lot of these flaws. But I think that would be such a temporary bandaid to kind of mask a lot of these issues. And maybe the organization in a weird way is better off in this regard because they can't delude themselves

into thinking everything's okay because he's got a 925 save percentage. Yeah, you know what? And interestingly enough, Alvin has a lot of times said, we have a great goalie. We won because of our goaltender.

Even last year when talking about Boudreau and talking about, you know, how do you guys play as a team? He said, well, we have a goalie that masks a lot of our problems. So I know he, at least, is aware of it, but you're right. Now it becomes even more obvious about the environment is just not sustainable. And it's not cohesive.

And it can't be something you can win with moving forward unless you make bigger and wider changes. And to your point on Demko, and you're so right about, especially when looking at the available shot metrics and where the shots come from, they don't account for the degree of that high danger chance, right? And talking to Kevin Woodley and looking at some of the numbers that he has from Clear Sites Analytics, he's actually made the point like you're making. It's not just that they're giving up more chances.

These are like grade A chances they're giving up. And I don't care who's in that. It's going to cause a lot of problems. He's also said, even with all that, Demko's not at the level you would expect him to be, but he's still above average. And that's the point you're right. I mean, he's still above average. The numbers look horrible because the environment is really bad around him.

And unless he's playing at a superhuman level, the team's not going to win games right now. And that's, I don't care how good your goaltender is. That's not sustainable. Even Basselowski put him into a situation like that over 82 games. It's probably not going to look pretty on a lot of nights. Well, this team has my least favorite statistical profile from a shot perspective that I see where in terms of raw shot attempts

and 5-1-5 share, they're 18th. So they're a middle-low pack. Oh, it's a pretty good team. 49% they're inching towards 50. But then you sort by, shots that are actually making it on goal, they're down to 21st. Then you go on high danger chances.

They're down to 25th. And so it's like, as the puck is getting closer to the net and more likely to actually wind up in the back of your net, they're getting worse and worse, both offensively and defensively. And that's a massive red flag that's kind of just flying off the page every time I look at their propoff.

Yeah, and where a lot of those shots are coming from. Yeah. You know, and it's pretty, it's astonishing how similar it looks to to start last season. A lot of same things, you know? Like, they're shots. totals were all right. You know, volume was okay, but weren't generating anything, giving up a lot, but not generating

a lot. And you could sit there and say, hey, we're out shooting teams, but what does that mean? When you're not generating a single proper scoring chance, I guess the only difference between now and last year is they haven't won a few games because through seven games, you know, last year they had, there were three, three and one. Yeah. But Alias Patterson looks like a different player. But outside of that, like, I want to watch a couple games from last year. They look eerily the same, you know?

And it's not the same coach either. Yeah. And I just don't know what the solution is to try to play differently unless you just say, you know, like you said, play some, you know, 50-50s or whatever and just pray to God that your defense doesn't get exposed too much. Well, these have been a rough 15 or 16 minutes for Canucks fans right now. So let's give them a little silver lining you because you mentioned Elias Pedersen there. I was just on with our pals, Jamie Dodd and Thomas Drans before this.

And I was kind of hinting at this. So I want to get into a bit more because I want to know what Eliass Pedersen's off-season workout regimen was because I want to go on it. Maybe I'll wait until my New Year's resolution to finally start it. But he looks so much stronger out there. I think you can tell his shot rate is back up, which means signals to me that he's feeling much more confident in his wrist health. And that kind of started towards the second half of last year. But in terms of some of these battles where he's like one-on-one beating Tage Thompson along the boards and winning puck possession of that against the Keynes.

He was going in and threw a massive body check off the four check. So you're seeing like the offensive element of it where he's creating so many chances for Kuzmanko's put calls and whoever he's playing with. but also off the puck as well, how much stronger he's become. And this is the player that we always, we saw like throughout the start of his career, flashes of it, now he's putting it all together. And so, you know, we don't have many results to show for it because his team is losing and everything around him has been so miserable. But that does feel like on a consistent night-to-night basis,

his performance and his line's performance has been the one thing you keep coming back to as a sense of hope of, okay, at least we have this blue chipper who is overcoming his environment. Yeah, he really is. And, you know, to your point about how strong he is, he, I mean, he showed some of the videos and posts about how much he's working out and those deadlifts and all that. So, yeah, I mean, it's all great. And it's funny, though, because fans still look at the number of times he falls over.

And they're like, oh, he's not strong. But if you go back and watch, he's winning so many puck battles. Yeah. And he's generating so much off the physicality that he has. And, you know, I think because of his build, like, he's kind of narrow and long, guys like that tip over sometimes that's going to happen. Yeah, the wind blows you fall in a while. That's going to happen every once in a while.

But you still get in a little. and win a lot of puck battle. And the amount of offense he generates from defense, what you mentioned earlier, it's not just about playing office and defense. A lot of this is tied together. You create offense from your transition game, which starts from how you get out of your own zone.

And his ability to generate offense from defense has been great. I mean, if there's one center, one player who does benefit for maybe trying to help the breakout, it has been Elias Pedersen. It has. I mean, his numbers are through the roof. He's basically the only, connect skaters so far where if you look at it,

all of his 5-on-5 metrics are great. He's a point of game. His shot rate is up, as I said, Kuzmenko, who he's played with a ton, is top 10 in terms of high danger chances himself. And pretty much most of those are Elias Pedersen, kind of serving it up on a silver platter for him. So there's a lot to like there and a lot to build around. But, yeah, beyond that, I mean, we can talk about J.T. Miller here.

We can talk about some of the other forwards that we expected more from. But there hasn't been much to bank on. And when you have just that one line operating that way, it's much easier to defend. Far easier to defend. And, you know, has had Kuzmank will take advantage of more opportunities? Yeah, maybe it's a whole lander. Maybe it is, but as far as the raw numbers are concerned, I mean, Patterson's had a good start to the season.

But I think what it shows is, if you can play at this level, Dimitri, what's the potential? What type of production can we expect from this player? I mean, he's already got three goals and four assists in seven games. I think he could easily have 10 assists at this point based on what he's set up. So, I mean, you know, people wonder what is his ceiling. We didn't see it last year. We saw towards the end how well he played.

I think every wonders what that is. If he can play this way, I mean, this is 100. point player. Like, he has that capability. Yeah, with the defensive element as well. I mean, like what I've seen on the penalty kill everything. Yeah, I mean, that's going to be the, this is going to be the few minutes of silver line that would give him next fans.

And, you know, I highlighted him before the season of the player I was excited to watch because he rounded so much back into that form. We'd fall in love with in the second half of last year and he's carried that over, which is very exciting to see. But yeah, beyond that, I mean, I don't know. Do you want to talk about J.T. Miller right now? We will. One question I have for you on, at least.

is Pedersen. The cap's going to go up maybe 4 million next year. Yes. What are we looking at? I mean, because people are wondering, you know, that's going to be 11 million plus, isn't it? Yes, assuming health, assuming the wrist issues are behind him and he plays this way. Yeah, the sky's limit, especially you're seeing some of these contracts

rolling young forwards. I mean, he must be just licking his lips seeing every one of them because yeah, I'd say definitely in the double-digit range probably around 11-ish, I guess. I'd say so too. I mean, it depends. I mean, if the cap goes up even more and he has one more big year in weights? Yeah. Could you imagine? Well, Dylan Larkin's the next dominoer to fall in that regard in terms of

kind of like a young leader for his team. And I wonder if with the cap going up four million next year, and he has one more year left on his deal. And then let's say the cap goes up, this is being, you know, very optimistic, but let's say it goes up another three or four million. It's going to reset the entire market as far as the contracts we're looking at. I mean, the percentage of the cap an extra nine million on top of the cap now. It will. I mean, I don't know if he's going to get 12 or 13, but I mean, I'm, I'm very curious to see how big these numbers are going to get in a hurry within a year or two. Yeah, but thought process like that enables this organization, which they've done for years. It's like, oh, well, listen, we can make all these investments because the cap's going to

go up every year. I'm just talking about Pederson, how much he's going to get paid. That's all. Yeah. I mean, yeah, I saw some of that with the J.T. Miller contract as well where it was like, oh, yeah, well, he's making this presenter of the cap now, but four years from now, like it's going to be peanuts compared to it's like, okay, what type of player is he going to look like in four years? That's the bigger question. You can't worry. I mean, with Patterson, you don't worry about it as much. Of course, yeah, because of his age. His age is going to play it out and whatever it is. but that number might be more eye-popping than people expect maybe in a year or so. But on J.T. Miller, there isn't a lot you can take from his game that's redeeming

outside of just the sheer production. Points he puts up, yeah. Especially, I mean, this year, last year you could make the same argument, but there was more to his game. The power play is terrible. I mean, one thing you could say about him was a catalyst on the powerplay, real solid producer there. With that not being the case, it's like what edge are you bringing outside of just, you know, scoring some points, which is good, but obviously not leading to any victories. Yeah.

Well, a lot's been made of the defensive effort. And listen, I don't think this is anything new. I've been longstanding this opinion of he's a player who's benefited from his reputation, I think, a little bit. Where for whatever reason he's thought of as, oh, this gritty two-way center who's a leader and who like, you know, puts the team on his back. And I always thought that was a strange sort of narrative to be peddling on what type of player he is when you actually watch him play. Highly skilled player produces a lot. was eating up a ton of minutes for the Canucks. But flawed, the effort, especially off the puck, is highly questionable at times.

Especially for a guy playing center. If he's on the wing, you can live with some of them. And we've seen players with less attitude issues that you can see manifesting themselves on the ice get questioned much more than we have JT Miller, right? Because, I mean, you score enough points. It's almost like the Bertuzi thing. You score enough, people don't worry about it. But as soon as the production goes down, people will turn on.

You're sulking. You're sulking. you're not scoring enough points, what's going on. And, you know, when Bert went from being, you know, a 40-goal guy to a 20-some goal guy, you know, the reputation, the reaction was a lot different. And I think the same thing for J.T. here, he is a highly flawed player. And ultimately, you can't rely on him being a center long term. No.

You know, like you can do it for the time being. You can play him in spots and all that sort of stuff. But his profile, his two-way profile, doesn't fit a center. And he's going to have to change his game dramatically and improve dramatically. and improved dramatically for him to be an effective centerment. Because right now, a lot of the issues happen from him. And I know he's not always in the wrong spot, but it's more about your instincts as well,

where you put your stick, which lanes you decide to take and how you decide to decide to pursue the puck. And a lot of times, yeah, he's maybe in the right spot, but you're not doing anything just standing there. Sat with him on the ice, high danger chances are 17 to 5 for Kinnuck's opponent. He has a sub-30 expected goal shirt. It's not good. It's very bad.

Very bad. I think the criticism of his play has been warned. Yes, absolutely. Okay, let's take a quick break here. And then we're going to come back and we're going to have more talk about the Canucks with Sat Shaw here on the Hockey P.DO cast on the SportsNet Radio Network. We're here on the podcast, on my pal sat. Sat, let's keep the conversation going.

So I think an important topic for us to hit on here is this idea that seems to be peddled right now by Canucks management that rebuilds take a long time. this market doesn't have the appetite or patience for it. And so that's kind of dictating a lot of these moves on it or the urgency, I should say, in terms of, all right, we're not willing to just completely trade every single player that's about to enter their 30s. Yeah. I mean, there's so many holes we can poke in that.

But for me, just hearing that, it's just complete utter nonsense because first off, I think it's disrespecting the fan base here a little bit that has gone through the past decade of Canucks hockey where they have a sub since 2013. Yeah. They are 26. in point percentage. And so if this isn't rebuilding, I don't know what is. They've just unfortunately fallen backwards into it as opposed to doing it with an actual

plan in place. But I know there's certainly going to be fans that if they see kind of like a shell line up where it's like, I, we're clearly not trying to win what the coyotes are doing this year, for example. Yeah, they're going to, they might tune out. But guess what? Those fans are going to come back when there's reason to cheer for again or the reason to watch the team again, which will have.

happen if you do it the right way. As opposed to that, you have this alternative, which is not really giving those fans anything to cheer for, but also sacrificing the future. And what you've done is you've already taxed all their hope. You've already used all the credit you can use in selling them the hope with this core and these young guys. And again, you're running into the same things. And I'm with you. Sure, there are fans that aren't going to like it. But of course, there is an appetite for it now. I mean, the first home game of the season doing the post game show. The number of messages I got on the post game show from people at the game saying they're longtime season ticket holders and they're sick of watching the same thing. And it was

eight years culminating to that one game. And I know it's a different management team, but it was a lot of the same things I came up. So that's why fans were so triggered after that opening night game and how they reacted. A lot of fans and they're saying, listen, I don't leave games early. I couldn't stand being here tonight. And they needed a rebuild. I can't come back to the same thing year and a year out again. You can't expect me to buy into the same thing year in and year out. So the appetite's there. It all comes down to one thing.

Does ownership want to do it or not? That's the only question I have, Dimitri, because it's bogus to say the fans won't do it. You can sell a plan to the fans and doesn't have to take that long. You have some building blocks. If you want to take that road, you can do it and sell it to the fans. The question comes down to, does management want to do it? And would ownership even greenlighted?

Well, I think most people, what they've wanted this entire time and what they still want and what they haven't received is an organization. that has not only a coherent plan in place for what it's trying to accomplish, but then actions that actually follow that up and show us that we're taking this plan seriously, right? It's a lot of stop and start, a lot of two steps forward, three steps back. And you're right. I mean, it seems clearly guided by the fact that they're desperate to hold on to these fans that might leave if you acknowledge that you're fully rebuilding and you're fully tearing it down. But to me, like you look at the Kings, for example, they won the cup in 2014.

They didn't really start trading anything away or fully rebuilding until January 2019 when they first traded Jake Mazen to the Leafs, I believe, and then, you know, came to Foley to the Canucks, Martinez to the Golden Knights, Jack Campbell as well, to the Leafs again. And what they did in the process in basically a three-year span is accumulate a ton of draft capital, make the most of it by drafting incredibly well, and keeping their financial books clear so that they could jump on Victor Ravitson when the expansion draft came. Philip Denno when he needed a new contract. Kevin Fiala this past off season. And not that they're, you know, this remarkable team now that is going to win a Stanley Cup this year. But I think, inarguably, it's a team that's not only better now, but has a significantly better future. And they started later than this current group. You know, and it does take, you can't just tear it all down in a week or two weeks or even one year.

It takes some time to move some guys out. But you have to start that process. And they can say, hey, listen, we moved out Dickinson, but you gave something up to move him out. we moved out Hamannick. Fair enough, you got something back. So you moved a couple of guys out. Wait, wait, wait. They were the ones giving away the pick for Jason Dickinson.

For sure, that's what I'm saying. No, I agree. I agree. They gave the pick as well. So, I mean, you know, they get rid of a pick to get rid of Dickinson. So they have shed some salary, but they haven't made a single tough decision. You know, the toughest decisions they've made was recommitting to players. Yes.

So I think they can say all the things about we want to do things. And it comes back to what you mentioned. Because they've said, yeah, we want to move more guys. We want to clear money. We haven't been able to do so. We have a desire to do it. but your actions have been the opposite. It's been to extend guys.

It's been to add players to the core. So the actions don't align what you're saying. But I do think there is a desire. I mean, how much differently would we be looking at it had they say traded better this offseason? One guy was gone. Right. You know? Well, it depends on what the trade was for.

For sure. If it was for John Merino, I mean, it probably would have made this team better. Yeah. But let's say it was a future deal. What people won. Let's say they traded Besser for a second round pick. Right. Even they're struggling now.

People would be like, you know what? Hey, hey, they traded best. they made a tough decision, you know, they trade that guy, let's see what happens. Clearly they have an idea of trying to rebuild. But because that one signature move hasn't happened, it's hard for them to sell, we are trying to move guys, we are trying to do this because it comes off as, no, you're just doubling down and you're adding players. Why should I believe you actually have the guts to go out and trade a Besser or trade a

bull or bad, you know? And they said themselves, we have to make tough decisions. And we're going to have to make a decision or two that fans won't like in terms of subtracting from the roster. that hasn't happened yet. No. You know? And the longer that it takes about to happen and the more you lose,

it's fair to ask, wait, like, are you actually trying to do this or not? But I do believe from what I've heard, and I trust the people I talk to on this, that there's a real desire here to move guys out and do more. They weren't able to do so, and they're hoping they can do so more over the course of this, you know, season and this off season. But the trust, it comes back to, like, how do you trust that they actually will do it? And fans have concerns, Demetri, that they start winning games again, get back in the run again.

Are they really going to make the moves you need to make? Well, I think that's the big question here. Is it, are you making moves for the sake of trying to salvage this current season? We're seven games in. There's 75 more to go. Yes. I think we're both in agreement that this team's not going to go winless. They're better than they've shown.

Yes. Demko's going to start making more saves. They'll start scoring more goals. All that's going to happen. But the concern for me, if I were a Canucks fan, would be we're going to win just enough games not to get a high traffic again. Yeah. While also diluting ourselves in a weird way organizationally that, oh, you know, if we enter

next off season and add one more one more player all of a sudden we could be a playoff to you. And it's like that, that's the absolute worst way to look at the situation. Can you see the forest for the trees? Yeah. I mean, can you do that. And if they can, I think you still make a tough decision. And I think the biggest indicator of that's going to be Bohrubat here, Dimitri, you know,

because a decision has to come. come. And I don't know how he is the captain. I know a lot of fans would be happy if they kept them. But it's hard to sell. We're going to be different. Seven more years beyond this to J.T. Miller. Another seven years say to Bull Horvat. I don't know if you can do that, you know, and sell this again. And even if you're on a run, that's going to be the big question. Because if you make that trade, no matter what, then it shows, okay, you have a plan. You have a real idea what you want to do. And you're not going to be fooled by the bounce back, which is going to happen. I mean, this team shouldn't be a sub-80-point team.

No. Which means they're going to win more games than they lose at some point in this season and go on or to run. And that's going to happen. It's going to frustrate people. It's going to excite some people, but it's going to frustrate a lot of people as well. You can't get fooled by that. And to me, that's going to be the biggest test here, that when you do have the bounce back, do you still have the guts to make the move you need to make?

Because the easiest thing to do is double down on what you already have. Yeah. Well, so Boaturns 28 this spring. Yes. I think based on everyone you talk to, it's pretty clear. I mean, this isn't unique to him, but it certainly seems to be coming from within his own voice that he wants to play competitive hockey. Yes. I think part of the logic used to be, well, he's the captain. He likes it here. So he'll take less to stay here. At this point,

I don't understand why he would do that to himself. Yeah. And so if he's going to take what someone would probably, if he's going to opt for what someone would give him on the open market, which is significantly more than he probably should be making for this Canucks team, then I don't know. know how you can reconcile giving him that if you're the Canucks in the current position they're in. And that's a very tricky. You're talking about making a hard decision. Yeah. That's going to be a tough one.

But he's also a player. I like Bo Horv about a lot. Similar to what we're talking about J.T. Miller, I think a bit miscast in the sense that he's not thought of as this defensive stalwart wins of tons of draws. Like, you can play it both ends in the ice. And he's an incredibly skilled player who has been miscast on this Canucks team because of their lack of depth. And so if someone wants to pay full dollar on the trade market for what that's,

idea of what Bo Horvad is and I'm sure he would look great on a better team that could insulate him in that way. Yes, sign me up for that if I'm running the Canucks. Well, it's funny because he's not, him and JT are not the same player. They're different, but they're probably probably two players you can say would be most effective as wingerers who can win draws. Yep. You know, as far as profile and what they can do really, really well. I mean, JT is more of a playmaker than Bo is. Bow is going through his numbers, especially his, you know, points per 60 numbers for his career, it's astonishing how static they are. No matter who his linemates are, good ones, bad ones, is pretty standard what he

produces. There's some ups and downs, but, you know, maybe in a good year, it's kind of, you know, the projections would be over five on five points over 60 minutes, maybe 50 some, and a high year would be 60 some. So that would be the variance. But it kind of shows you, the range pretty much stays the same. So he's not a guy who makes his wingers better or makes his linemates better and creates a lot better, or with better alignments all of a sudden is going to explode into this, you know, great big score, it's kind of limited to what he's going to do. So with that being the case, how do you commit to him? Then the other thing you mentioned, why would he want to commit to being here after all the

losing? And they're not going to give him all the money he wants. And the other part of it is you want to pay JT just from a, you know, person to person feeling in a room. Like, does he feel a little slighted about how this whole thing is going and they're not really offering him a much to get. They took care of JT heading into the season. He hasn't had his money paid yet.

Does he get to a point when he says, I have a number I want? you give me that number, okay, I'll stay. But otherwise I'm not going to, and I don't think that number is going to align for both parties. Yeah. Well, Sat,

this is a franchise that over the past three years has made six, six, and five draft picks. Now, you start off with seven. Yes.

So, I mean, I think that's a pretty clear sign of where you would start with this thing. We were just talking about what the Kings Day, for example, what the team would do.

Like, I don't understand how you could approach a situation without making every move about how do we change this and how do we increase our chances of getting impact players that are young and cost controlled. Especially when you have, Alex Pedersen, who's performance we just marveled at, Quinn Hughes, who was wearing down towards the end of that five game stretch because of that workload on him, but is clearly an impact player that you can build your blue line around. Thatcher Demko, who's under contract at a great deal that we're really high on. and is in the prime of his career. Like, these are foundational building blocks, but hockey is a team sport, and you need so much more than that for that to matter.

And so you have the difficult pieces in place. And I think the problem is they've identified that and gone, all right, well, we got this. Now let's pay all these other kind of superfluous parts around them that are luxury items, when in reality they should have been taking the long of you all along and being like these players are in their early to mid-20s, three, four years from now,

how can we put them in a best position to succeed? Well, exactly. Now you're in a position where all your guys have to get paid premium dollars. You know, you can't pay everybody premium dollars and they haven't accomplished enough. I mean, you had a choice between JT and Boe, I think. You know, and the organization has made this choice and we'll see if they find a way to keep Boas as well. You could have made a case for either one because neither, as much as they're important players to the team, aren't exactly the foundational building blocks that you want to really build your team around. That's Quinn, that's Patterson, that's Thatcher Demko.

Those are the guys that you really want to build around. Everybody else has to fit in money-wise in a way that makes sense. And had you, say, not spent as much on the superfluous players you're talking about that aren't providing next to anything to the roster, maybe you could say, you know what, let's just give both seven or eight. He's our guy. Let's just make it work. We can do that.

But now you can. You've backed yourself into a corner where even the guys you might feel like, okay, we can pay a little extra to keep because it's worth keeping. You can't. You simply can't. Like, they have no margin for error to hand out any more contracts at this point. So that's why a tough decision decision really has to happen somewhere.

And if it doesn't, you're going to be stuck in the same position. Yeah, man, that is a frustrating thought to think about. But yeah, I mean, here we are. What was it two years ago now where if they had just showed any ounce of patients,

they would have been off $12 million. Instead, they reinvested it. For sure. But again, it comes down, Demetri, to, like, okay, right now, I know people are getting mad at me because I'm like, no, ownership's not forcing them to sign JTMO.

That's what I've heard, at least. That's not what's going on. but ownership has always been kind of the big issue over everything in terms of big picture. The meddling, yeah. And what we're trying to do, yes. And usually it's like hands off for a few years, but eventually can't help yourself. You want to get involved and things really start to devolve from that point on. We're not there yet, I don't think.

But if you want to go back two years, the best example of it was had you made the changes this past off season, when it was so clear with how the year went and everything, that had you just made a clean break, there would be no pressure to go out and trade for all OEL and Garland. But when you come back with the same management team and say, you guys got to be better next year, you're going to make the playoffs. And now the core, after not investing in them or wondering, what are you guys going to do?

Do you guys believe in winning? Do you have ambition or not? So you try to show them that you have ambition with the same group. So you go out and make an aggressive move and you go and spend all your money. It goes to not having the stomach to do what you need to do. Because had they just taken their hands off the wheel and said, you know what, let's make the change today. Travis, you're gone.

Jim, you're gone. I know I didn't give you guys the money you wanted during a pandemic here, but you know what? Things change. We got a clean slate here. And had you done that, we'd be sitting here right now with more cap space with the team, a top 10 pick. And you could sell the players on, we have a new management team here. We have a new coach. I know you guys are wondering about ambition, but we have a plan in place.

Be patient. We're going to work this out. You could have sold that to the players. We couldn't sell that vision of Be Patient with Jim Benning as the president, as a GM, still behind, you know, running the whole operation. And this goes back to having the stomach to do what needs to be done to a lot of team to be successful. Well, you know, to, to quote the wise Brian Winhorse here, why would the jazz do this?

Why would the, when the Jason Dickinson trade came through? Yeah. I mean, it's pretty clear why they did that to save a couple bucks. That's, that's an alarming reality for an organization that has, I understand the pandemic hit us all really hard. they were, you know, pretty openly cutting costs where they could. Yeah. Devesting resources.

And so to build a successful organization, you need to invest as much as you can into it. Yeah. And so that that would be an alarming thing when you see a move like that where it's pretty clear. They especially, what am I just saying? They've had five, six, six draft picks the past three years. Yeah. And they're trading a future second to save what, at 1.5 and then 1.9 million in the next year? Yeah.

So they save about 3.5 in cash, which if they end up buying out Riley Stillman ends up actually saving them almost $5 million in cash coming up this off season. And it would give them about, if they buy out Stillman, they pretty much get $3.5 million in cap space. So they go $2.5 million in cash space. So they get cap space. But the dollar savings are notable because you see how it stands out. And the team I come out and said, we don't want to move draft picks to get off salary. And then they end up moving a draft pick to get off salary. And I know they were up against the cap,

but you wonder about those types of trades. Like how important was that for the organization? Yeah. What else here on the Canucks do you want to get through? We've got another like 10 minutes or so. I think we've hit on a lot of the key topics. I don't know. I've seen this idea that,

and I think Darren flew it out yesterday and when he says something like that, it's clearly coming from someone. He's not just making that up. Yeah. This idea that they consider changing coaches or that that's one option. Okay.

You know, we didn't touch on the coaching thing at all. I think it's... Well, we touch on a little bit when we were talking about, like, the puck hunting. For sure. But I mean, in terms of how Bruce fits in with that management team and everything, because I think it's pretty evident. He's not really their guy. You know, it's clear it was an ownership hire, even though, you know,

Rutherford signed off on it. And Rutherford admitted on Hockey Night in Canada on the weekend that he thought that Boudre was going to sign a one-year deal. That was his understanding. And then he found out it was a one plus an officer. option year. So that was interesting that he mentioned that and that maybe he had said to ownership, I'm cool with Boudreau for a year and then ownership ends up giving him an option year.

And it's like, okay, now we're forced to bring this guy back and he had the good 57 game run. It kind of came off as if we weren't for, if we didn't have that extra year, maybe we would don't bring him back or maybe we have our own view on it or whatever it is. And the other thing that they always talked, they kept talking about is they want to, they want to be better with how they play and they want to have an identity with how they play. It doesn't look like Bruce fits with what they want to do. What's that identity? Playing fast?

They want to play fast. They want to play more structures, what they talk about. And I think they are. Even though Alvin today said the system looks the same. I don't buy it because the breakouts are different, man. You watch it too. You see how much lower the forwards are and how much they're trying to help out. So I don't think they're trying to play the same system.

But when the GM says they're trying, yeah, it's pretty much the same thing. It means they're not impressed with what they're seeing. They weren't happy with the habits during preseason and during training camp. And they're not really giving him this huge endorsement. I don't think you should get fired because it's not his fault, why this team is where it's at. But it seems evident based on what they're saying and how they're acting that he's not their guy. I mean, listen, there's clear personnel limitations in roster construction philosophy, right? And I think it's so much more deeply rooted than any coach.

And they've had tough injuries to navigate at the start of the season. What I would say to that is that's an unfortunate reality for everyone. It's part of the game. It happens. It happened to kind of come in a string for them. at the start of the year. But if you're already in such shambles, trying to patch it up and make it work,

one, two weeks into the season, to me, that signals not only like a lack of depth in your organization, which speaks to those draft picks and the lack of usable players in the system, but how poorly prepared you were for the season that this is already happening. You know what I mean?

Like, a team like the Penguins who are going to be in town this week, we always talk about them as, no matter what happens, even removing Crosby and Malkin at times for extended stretches, they're just able to basically plug and play someone from Wilkesbury. They come in, Mark Dong, all of a sudden, scores 30 goals, right? Buzz Flibbett already scores 25 goals. That's a good organization. That's a, that's,

from a drafting, from a development perspective, from a preparation perspective. And so I have no time for injuries. Like, obviously you remove a top defense and from any team, they're going to look worse. But the fact that you're relying on Jack Rathbone all of a sudden of this degree, or you have no one else in place that can move the puck, that's, That's not a Quinn Hughes injury problem. That's an organizational problem. Yeah, and even as much as we can look at this management team say they didn't address the defense enough, they've also only been on the job for a year.

And the sins of Jim Benning and the lack of prospects and young players coming up, there's a lot of gaps to fill. And it's going to take time to fill those gaps. The question does come down to how much, how far you go to address filling those gaps, because they won't fill by themselves and hoping. that they're going to fill and hoping that you're going to hit on your draft picks that you have,

that's a hope. That's not a plan. You know what I mean? Because what do all the best teams have in common? That draft well. Yeah. They pick a lot.

Yeah. You know? Yeah, there's some outliers. As many kicks of the can as you can get in. Exactly. That's what it comes down to. And unless you accumulate more, it's going to be hard to fill that gap.

And we can talk about Guadenae and free agents, but if you're not developing enough players, Guillain-Briesbos shouldn't be playing his 11th game in the NHL. He was drafted, it was in 2015 or whatever it was. Yeah. this is a guy that, you know, should be at this point, how he'd develop properly, you should have been playing every day for your team.

Instead, he's number 10, 11 on your depth chart, and he's playing a couple games for you. You don't have those guys you've developed, and that's what you have to really start building into this group as well. You really see it in years like this. I mean, how many, you see the free agent defensemen that are depth defensemen. None of them are really good, right? The two-way guys are signed, the two-way contract.

You're not going to win signing those guys. Well, and that's why I really push back on the idea of this. organization not want to make a panic move now because I think it's it's long past time to panic in terms of some of these underlying issues right and not not panicking in terms of the seven game sample but panicking in terms of what this seven game sample has shown us for sure in terms of the underlying issues exactly and and the question is does management see it you know do they see the flaws or are they going to you know fall for the same you know fall i think it's a lot easier to see it when you're 05 and two it is exactly and and honestly like i've been saying that of them

maintaining all along i haven't been as critical with management because I think they do see it. I think their biggest fault has been an inability to do the things they want to do. And I think, hey, again, like, you can say all the right things to have the best plan. You have to execute your plan. It doesn't, you know, it doesn't take them, it doesn't excuse anything or whatever it is. But you got to get stuff done. Yeah.

You know, and ultimately, unless you make some tough decisions, how are you going to eventually supplement things? Well, the clock is ticking and we're going to see if that plan is in place. Sat, where can people check you out? when can they check you out because you're talking about this team full time. I'm just kind of helicoptering into talking about, although I will say, I don't know if I mentioned it.

I woke up this morning to watch all seven games, and it's been a day for me. Yeah, it's been a day. I've got a lot of Cunucks overload, but I'll let you, I'll let you kind of plug some stuff here. Thanks, man.

Yeah, as always on Connuck Central, well, with Dan Richo 4 to 6, on Sports and 650, you can always find it on any of your favorite podcasters, and hey, always on the post game show, and usually intermissions on regional broadcasts on TV. I always laugh when I look at your Twitter feed,

and then after another loss, you're like, how would you, how would you describe? What are your thoughts on this? This one, I know. Those, um, it's brave of you to open yourself off to that. Listen, the post game show,

I always present a question after every game. Yeah. I've been doing it now for ever since I've been doing the post game show. It's, it's the same, it's the same answers over the, well, it is frustrating because, yeah.

We've done the show three times now in three separate years. Yeah. And it feels like the tenor has been the exact same. The themes have been the exact same. The names have been slightly different, but same old, same old. Yeah, the people in charge have changed. And I think we should give some time to see if the people in charge can do the things.

But when you see the same things occur again, you know, people are running thin on trust and patience. Yeah, I think it's understandable, honestly. All right, Sat, this is a blast. We will have you on again this season for sure. We won't wait until next year. Love it. Thank you to everyone for listening to the Pediocast. If you enjoyed it, you can help us out by leaving a five-star review wherever you listen to the show.

And we'll be back tomorrow with more. So thank you for listening to the hockey piece. on the Sportsnet Radio Network.