Barry_Wilkins

So your argument is that Boeser, when they both played, was more banged up than Toffoli, according to some secret injury info you are privy to, but that the rest of us aren't? Face it, your arguments and speculations (Holtby better than Markstrom, e.g.) are just exposing you as a pom-pom waver. Nothing wrong with that -- it's great to be a passionate fan -- but as an objective analyst it's not a good look.

You didn't answer my question. Your deflections are telling. When Boeser and Toffoli were healthy, Toffoli replaced him on the 1st line and on PP1.

Yeah, that long-winded Canucks management apologia was the perfect example of the Covid "get-out-of-jail-free" card. Any bad decision, it's excusable because, hey Covid!

Then why was Boeser replaced on PP1 by Toffoli?

Holtby better than Markstrom in the past 2 years? I'll give you credit for trolling. Not even the most homer-obsessed fan could think this otherwise.

He was on our 1st line, replacing Boeser. He was a key component on our PP1 with great down-low passing, lwading to many PP goals/per chance. Did you follow the Canucks?

Inferior to Markstrom. I thought that point was rather obvious, but apparently you'll read into it what you want.

Also, you and canuck73 seem to be playing the "big picture" card here. This is a thread specific to Toffoli signing for $4.25X4 with another team -- a player at a position we need to fill, and will now have to hope to correct. Do you or do you not think it unwise that we couldn't/wouldn't match that same offer for Toffoli? And keep in mind that Toffoli, by all accounts, loved it here. And why wouldn't he, improving his stats on a dynamic PP with Petterson and Hughes. Plus, his wife liked the West Coast.

You realize that you can use that same bogus "deferral" non-argument for any move or non-move, right? Even people who are angered by this trade still defer to Benning, as in, "there must be something up Benning's sleeve". I can only go by the moves he's actually made. And it's not shaping up very well, is it? Or do you think losing your elite goalie, top line RW, top 4 Dman, and #5 Dman, only replacing that with an inferior tandem goalie, is countered by "we can still make moves". Well, sure Benning can make moves, but, to be as objective as possible, do you really see any move he could make at this point recouping even a fraction of what he's given up?

Hell yeah! A proven 25 goal scorer, and a key component on PP1 gone. But let's promote Lind, and sub him in automatically on the 2nd line. That should be great for the Canucks fortunes, plus for Lind's development! Or do you want Jake on line two, when Green didn't even trust him enough to start him in the playoffs, despite several injured forwards?

I wanted Toffoli signed, but I thought it'd take $5 mil per, which the cap crunch wouldn't allow. The fact that Benning couldn't match $4.25 just speaks to his ongoing ineptitude.

And if that "more" exceeds your internal limit on what you think the player is worth, you walk. You don't keep upping your bid until there's no one left to bid against. And the overpay on cap per year isn't even the biggest issue. It's the extra year or two on term for those contracts that's now come home to bite them.

Bogosian would've been a good, cheap stop-gap for us on the right side for one year.

My point was about Benning's longer term vision. Agree on Benn. And I'm not defending him completely, though I can see his thinking on the matter.

That's my take on Benning's vision as well. And even though we beat St. Louis, it was really all about Markstrom dominating Binnington. Our D were under siege from St. Louis forwards. Draft could also be an indication of that. First pick (round 3, albeit) was a 6'4" Dman. And Benning's said he wants team to get bigger. Stecher is the obvious one to go if that's true. (Hughes, obviously, a special case.) Would also be good to get more muscle as back-up for Pettersson. Pete's only going to get targeted even more the next few years.

There was none. At least that was the report. It's obvious Benning had no desire to sign him.

I can't even imagine Markstrom in that ugly red uniform. Calgary's defensive structure is sub-par. To Calgary's benefit, at least Markstrom's used to that.

Flanking Keenan on each side.

Holy guacamole Batman! Just heard Kevin Woodley on 1040. Says not to worry about Holtby's .897 save % last season, that Wash was so horrible defensively in front of him, that his expected save % was .879. That's ... mind-boggling. A goalie who far exceeded expectations with an .897 save %. Now even more excited to see if/how Clark can help him.

Lotsa people hate seeing their favourite players move to a division rival. Not me. Van-Cal games are now must-see hockey. And more divisional games, too, especially with start of year (probably) with Covid travel protocols. Bring it on!

It was .897. Two years before that, it was .911 and .907. Three years is an eternity for goalies, so not promising. That said, he was excellent before that. So Ian Clark, hopefully, may be able to work his magic. And the term is perfect.

All quotes aren't etched on Mount Google. Two 24 hour sports stations talking hockey all year round is where I got it from Benning. More to the point, Benning stated on several other occasions (at least), without putting an exact number on it, that the plan was to have Demko start a significant number of games, that they wanted to get him experience, that they believed in him, that he needed to see top quality action, blah blah blah. At first he and Green kept their word/plan. Demko slightly outperformed Markstrom the first two months (both played well, though), then Demko got hurt. Demko came back near Xmas, but Markstrom was 'the man' the rest of the season, Demko only seeing action (not as development) on back-to-backs or after Markstrom had had a long run. Again, I don't fault them (although I still would've liked to see Demko get at least another 5-7 games), but them's the facts.

Huh? Benning's on record before this past season as saying that they were planning to start Demko 30 or so games. Ditto Green. And before you say "show me the quotes", I'm not gonna waste my time scouring theh interwebz searching for it. If interested, do it yourself.

My point to deniro was to not count on what Benning says about their division of starts in the off-season. That's all. Not saying I disagreed with Benning before.

Hopefully they'll follow through this time. If they're both here, of course.