Jim Benning Interview

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

I think we can all agree there may be better goalies available. The thing he is missing is that we don't know who else will be available. Say Holtby is available, but they also leave Wilson, Oshie, Ellers, or a young upstart unprotected, they may decide to take Oshie and Markstrom as compared to Lind and Holtby ... there are so many unknowns.

 

For me it would be something like

 

Markstrom

Demko

Lind

Myers

Ferland

Rousell (1 yr)

Beagle (1 yr)

Motte (1-2 yr)

Dipietro

Rafferty

Brisebois

Gadjovich

 

How he unequivocally dismisses Marky and Demko from that list is beyond me ... I guess based on what he thinks Seattle will do. Because that's pretty easy to figure out ... considering Seattle hasn't even figured it out yet.

 

Anyways if I'm Seattle the only player I seriously consider other than the goalies is Lind, unless they are seriously seeking a 4th line role player in Rousell, Beagle, Motte.

 

Yup, or perhaps WAS offer them a pick/prospect to leave Holtby and take player 'X' instead. Or perhaps Holtby has a career ending injury in the interim. Or perhaps Holtby signs a longer, more expensive extension than Marky and is already a year older, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

But nope, SEA will clearly take Holtby and you're just being angst-ridden Gawd. There's zero chance our goalies would be at all attractive under any of those possible of scenarios... No way SEA even considers them. Case closed.

[Gawdzukes]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Yup, or perhaps WAS offer them a pick/prospect to leave Holtby and take player 'X' instead. Or perhaps Holtby has a career ending injury in the interim. Or perhaps Holtby signs a longer, more expensive extension than Marky and is already a year older, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

But nope, SEA will clearly take Holtby and you're just being angst-ridden Gawd. There's zero chance our goalies would be at all attractive under any of those possible of scenarios... No way SEA even considers them. Case closed.

[Dr. Crossbar]

On 1/26/2020 at 12:19 PM, oldnews said:

I'm a bit torn on this expansion.

I 'hate' expansion - hate the whole dynamic it geneates - hate the Vegas Knights - hate how spoon fed the process was for them.

 

On the other hand, I like Seattle - wouldn't mind seeing them form a good rivalry with the Canucks and Alberta teams - they'll probably be my favorite American team from the get-go - I find myself softening on my contempt for how favourable the expansion draft terms are.

 

So I'd advise them against taking Murray....(no bias whatsoever )  

Realistically the rest of his (larger) sample is pretty good (lifetime .915 - good in his first two playoffs, not so much the past two years) - maybe a  'starter' option depending on what his terms will look like?  Vegas did alright taking a downward trending (at the time) former Pens starter.

Know what you mean. Initially I wasn't a fan of the expansion approach to Vegas. I've come to terms, though, with this new model. I do think it's better for the game (and fans) if expansion teams don't suck for years on end.

 

I hated seeing expansion teams in non-traditional markets with so many empty seats each year and the hard sell of it all. In that regard, imo, some markets need to be spoon fed more so than others. I think it was crucial for Vegas to succeed out of the gate. Especially given the competition for entertainment in that city and the need for a major pro sports league to succeed there. I get it from that standpoint.

 

I do think it's good if Seattle is competitive out of the gate. But it gets into territory of what's fair advantage. For me, it raises the question of just how much spoon feeding does Seattle actually need as a market to thrive?

 

If anything, as a counter advantage, expansion teams shouldn't be able to select from teams that have never won a Stanley Cup. I don't think that's unfair. There aren't many left.

 

As for Murray, that's exactly where I was coming from after seeing Fluery shine in Vegas. Not sure what the next contract will look like but he'll only be 27 in 2021. 

Although Murray's currently trending downward, his age and experience would give Seattle decent stability and the option to transition him to back up in 3-5 years or sooner depending on if they also take 23-24 year old goalies. 

 

My guess is that Seattle will favor age and experience, stability. I think they'll favor someone with proven starting experience first over potential. And if they follow what Vegas did, it's not a bad move to go after a name guy that fans can get excited about. Murray's got two cups and it's easier to sell a former champion to a city than an unknown. Who knows how this will shake out.

 

I hate the thought of them taking Demko and having to face him in Seattle. It would just leave a bitter taste. 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Dr. Crossbar
.

[oldnews]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Know what you mean. Initially I wasn't a fan of the expansion approach to Vegas. I've come to terms, though, with this new model. I do think it's better for the game (and fans) if expansion teams don't suck for years on end.

 

I hated seeing expansion teams in non-traditional markets with so many empty seats each year and the hard sell of it all. In that regard, imo, some markets need to be spoon fed more so than others. I think it was crucial for Vegas to succeed out of the gate. Especially given the competition for entertainment in that city and the need for a major pro sports league to succeed there. I get it from that standpoint.

 

I do think it's good if Seattle is competitive out of the gate. But it gets into territory of what's fair advantage. For me, it raises the question of just how much spoon feeding does Seattle actually need as a market to thrive?

 

If anything, as a counter advantage, expansion teams shouldn't be able to select from teams that have never won a Stanley Cup. I don't think that's unfair. There are only two.

 

As for Murray, that's exactly where I was coming from after seeing Fluery shine in Vegas. Not sure what the next contract will look like but he'll only be 27 in 2021. 

Although Murray's currently trending downward, his age and experience would give Seattle decent stability and the option to transition him to back up in 3-5 years or sooner depending on if they also take 23-24 year old goalies. 

 

My guess is that Seattle will favor age and experience, stability. I think they'll favor someone with proven starting experience first over potential. And if they follow what Vegas did, it's not a bad move to go after a name guy that fans can get excited about. Murray's got two cups and it's easier to sell a former champion to a city than an unknown. Who knows how this will shake out.

 

I hate the thought of them taking Demko and having to face him in Seattle. It would just leave a bitter taste. 

Those are great points about needing to get a market to tune in to a team from the get-go to make if viable - it's just sickening from the viewpoint of franchises that have toiled forever and never been spoonfed anything.

The counterpoint is that 'we' are the 'base' - that gets taken for granted.   Hockey markets in Canada watching an expansion team go deeper than any of 'our' teams in it's inaugural season = a valid counterpoint to the market-think of the sellers of expansion.

 

Murray could be a good take for them - so hard to project who/what will be available in expansion though - so many goaltenders expiring - and who knows what kind of pre-emptive measures teams will take regarding the ed.   From the Canucks standpoint, it might be worth dangling a larger carrot up front to Markstrom - a sweet payment over the next couple years, if he's willing to expire at expansion...and do an end-around - ala Edler.   I don't think there's a think the league could do about that kind of ed 'circumvention'.   The team would have to calculate the costs of the higher cap up front (it may take an asset to clear cap? or dealing a decent roster player's contract - but they might regain that value in the asset gain?   The one luxury I think they do have is that regardless of where the ed loss might come, they do have a fairly balanced prospect base, so they can conceivably shoulder it regardless. 

I just hate the side issue interfering with the actual team-building process - it's a distraction that was just tolerated and here it is again.

[iceman64]

11 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

Anything north of 6 is out of the question.  6 year term and he lives a life of wealth and so does his kids.  If he wants more... see ya later.  Bring in a solid vet to stabilize the crease and let Demko evolve.  

 

The salary structure has to be maintained to exit this mess in one piece.  

 

Teams that over commit to goalies almost always suffer.  Look at Montreal, look at the Loui debacle under MG.  

 

We just cannot commit beyond 6m for any player not named Pettersson or Hughes.

Yep.. that's pretty much it.. plus we'll have to sign Boeser after LE is gone and Demko will need a contract providing he works out then Hughes as well but we get another Lou off the books too but this is all just based on the cap and that's a variable that might change so this might be all void if it goes up a lot or a little but who knows right? It might drop or stay the same depending on the market then.. new tv deal? Lots to it..

 

[oldnews]

On 1/26/2020 at 7:56 PM, riffraff said:

Such a good debate.  For me I see Marky trumping Demko based on the size advantage.

 

no doubt Demko is athletic and is JQuick-esque but Markstrom is very athletic for a big man and his size allows him to battle for his position in the crease when it gets heavy.

Was just wondering....

 

Seattle has already hired Francis.

 

I wonder when the window opens - when is it open season to start cutting expansion side deals?  Obviously where roster players are concerned, you can't send a player to a construction project, but when can the side deals begin to be negotiated?

 

Having both Demko and DiPietro - while looking to re-sign Markstrom could make it quite interesting.

Ie. do they manage to throw in an LE - (who, unprotected may have a NTC, but that does not exempt him) - or a Baertschi.  Ie Tampa threw in a 2nd and a 4th, along with Gusev's rights and dumped Jason Garrison's contract in exchange for leaving Tampa's roster intact.  The Canucks would appear to have a moveable goaltender asset - some good AHL and prospect depth - there may be some interesting possibilities there - if nothing were to materialize with a team like Ottawa...

[riffraff]

7 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Was just wondering....

 

Seattle has already hired Francis.

 

I wonder when the window opens - when is it open season to start cutting expansion side deals?  Obviously where roster players are concerned, you can't send a player to a construction project, but when can the side deals begin to be negotiated?

 

Having both Demko and DiPietro - while looking to re-sign Markstrom could make it quite interesting.

Ie. do they manage to throw in an LE - (who, unprotected may have a NTC, but that does not exempt him) - or a Baertschi.  Ie Tampa threw in a 2nd and a 4th, along with Gusev's rights and dumped Jason Garrison's contract in exchange for leaving Tampa's roster intact.  The Canucks would appear to have a moveable goaltender asset - some good AHL and prospect depth - there may be some interesting possibilities there - if nothing were to materialize with a team like Ottawa...

So if I’m reading this right you’re hypothesizing a contract switch Garrison for SB or LE?

[oldnews]

21 minutes ago, riffraff said:

So if I’m reading this right you’re hypothesizing a contract switch Garrison for SB or LE?

I'm noting that Vegas cut a bunch of side deals where they took assets they didn't necessarily want, in exchange for compensation that did not necessarily include a valued roster asset - ie at the same time as taking a contract (Garrison), they also took futures or alternative assets (picks and rights) rather than a player that otherwise would have been exposed.  It leaves open a pretty wide range of possibilities.   

Tampa managed imo to get away fairly nicely. 

On the other hand, Vegas also took advantage of teams like Florida - who were not only taken for Marchessault, but threw Reilly Smith Vegas' way as well,  for a 4th (who has scored 152 pts in 193 games for Vegas - while Marchessault has 167 in 206.)  Ouch.  Obviously not the model to have in mind.

Edited January 29, 2020 by oldnews