Canucks Four Biggest Non-Mistakes Over the Last Year

[Winter Soldier]

Vrbata cost us Provorov.

Hamuis cost us Werenski.

Sedins cost us Marner.

I smell someone peeking out of the tanker closet.

[Gaudette Celly]

Certainly much to be encouraged about. Canucks didn't have any sort of "lucky" year, but earned everything they got. Looks to me like the one down-year has already come, and things have stabilized. Starting the rebuild and ascension back into contention from a 100-point foundation is none too bad at all.

[Me_]

JB is rebuilding this team and in a few years the team if built properly will contend.

JB even admitted that he didn't realise the amount of depth at "D" that is required when playing and travelling in the West.

What concerns me is him putting value in players like Miller when he could be putting value in the defence and acquiring the player that we really need. Our "D" is marginal at best...

Take the Blue Jays as an example...they pickup the players they need and voila you have a contending team.

This same thing can apply to the Canucks now and in the future; but management needs to understand what makes a contending team.

Hate to hurt the optimist feeling, but Miller, a player past his prime, and Prust a player past his prime are not the answers.

Better to go into the season with Miller than with only Markstrom. No choice there. Miller does the job very well. Most likely enough to get the Canucks into the playoffs again. A healthy Miller in the playoffs might get into Calgary's head instead of them getting into Lack's and the rest of the team's head. Oh Hansen... A great add-on to a Vrbata or Hamhuis trade to get perhaps a great 1D prospect and a 1st...

Our D is indeed "marginal". With Vrbata and Hamhuis money, Seabrook may be available. If not, Campbell, Byfuglien, Boyle, Giordano or Coburn are also currently on their way to 2016 free agency. That's if the Canucks aren't in the hunt for a T1D prospect already.

Sometimes, on some teams, some things happen and players become available. Perhaps Corrado really solidifies his spot on the Canucks roster and is viewed as the next Tanev which, Frankiely, wouldn't be so bad...

[elvis15]

So your admitting Miller is better than Lack?

And as of right now I'm happy about Boeser,

Also you contradicting your self, at one end Miller made this team better and cost this team a high pick and then you say Millers cap makes up worse?

What is it, does miller make up better or worse?

Considering the comparison of having Miller or Lack as a starter this past season, Miller was a good choice as it would have been a lot of pressure on Lack if we didn't find a veteran backup to share the load or had gone with Markstrom but he'd crapped the bed. Miller had an advantage last season being a more experienced goalie, even if the numbers at the end of the year had them very closely matched. This coming year is much more arguable, with Miller another year older and coming off a two month injury where Lack has gained more experience starting in a significant number of games.

Certainly not the point I was making though, which is that saying "but we got Brisebois so we should be happy" isn't really that valid if you consider the alternatives and how they also could have improved our assets going forward. If you didn't see anything of interest ahead of Boeser in my example, then maybe we could have still picked him after trading down from 15 and getting an early 2nd round pick. Or, maybe we didn't even do that well and ended up with a lottery pick, and then won the draft lottery. Lots of ways to argue the point beyond "we should be glad we have Miller and be happy with the return for Lack."

And those things are the same. Going with Miller meant we likely ended up with a higher draft pick (as Lack would have still needed solid support as a starter), and also reduced our available options to improve the team elsewhere. Maybe one would have offset the other, say if we brought in a $4M defender instead of Miller who really helped solidify our team and make Lack's job as a starter easier, so that we ended up in a similar spot in the standings.

I feel like people tend to look at season by season as opposed to long term when it comes to criticizing Bennings moves. Not necessarily Elvis, but with the points you made here Forsberg.

Let's say for example we went with Lack/Markstrom last season. Okay, so we end up lower in the league and get ourselves a Barzal (though I agree, Boesser is looking great so far) and now coming into this season we still have Lack/Markstrom. So, short of retaining the services of a decent vet, we can conclude we'd have a similar turnout and end up out of the playoff picture once again. Now, do we resign Lack to a contract at the end of this coming season? He's due for a raise if he's a starter, obviously. Does the money spent elsewhere (on D for example) make a big enough difference of not having Miller? I honestly don't think so.

Benning has repeatedly said he thinks goaltending is the most important position in hockey and I tend to agree with him. It's the only position that plays the entire game and having a GOOD veteran back there, and a solid prospect in the works, has the makings to be a good system. Do I think Miller was worth 6m? No I do not, but overpaying for a relatively short term while Markstrom develops makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Like I say, plenty of ways to argue hypotheticals. Maybe Lack and Markstrom would be further ahead in their development and we do better this coming year. Maybe we sign Lack since Markstrom needs more time but at a deal much less than $6M because he loves it here and takes a discount but isn't an overpaid free agent signing. And the money we saved for two seasons allowed us to get a significant piece elsewhere in the roster, and still having some extra space after to keep from being as tight to the cap as we are with Miller.

Or, maybe they both crap the bed and we end up with McDavid even without the lottery's help.

Goaltending's important, sure, even if we've seen numerous examples of pretty good goalies winning the cup behind great teams while great goalies with pretty good teams don't win. Not much of that matters when we're more of a good team though, and aren't really hoping to win the cup, just win our fair share and be in a lot of games by being competitive.

Vrbata cost us Provorov.

Hamuis cost us Werenski.

Sedins cost us Marner.

I smell someone peeking out of the tanker closet.

Nope, not at all. We already had the Sedins and Hamhuis, and Vrbata was an addition we needed as we didn't have a young player ready to step into that role just yet. Add to that I suggested we could have gotten someone else to improve in other areas if we didn't have an extra $6M in cap due to Miller.

[Gaudette Celly]

Nope, not at all. We already had the Sedins and Hamhuis, and Vrbata was an addition we needed as we didn't have a young player ready to step into that role just yet. Add to that I suggested we could have gotten someone else to improve in other areas if we didn't have an extra $6M in cap due to Miller.

And goaltending was exactly where improvement and stability was needed. Well done, Jim!

[elvis15]

And goaltending was exactly where improvement and stability was needed. Well done, Jim!

That's debatable. What have we been clamouring for the past 5-10 years? A top 6 winger and an offensive, puck moving defenceman. We got the top 6 winger but still don't have that defenceman - and not only traded away one of our veteran D but also one of our most NHL-ready PMD//PPQB prospects. But, we've got a goalie who was injured for two months and makes $6M salary despite being past his prime and having similar stats to a guy we just traded away for less than expected.

[Junkyard Dog]

That's debatable. What have we been clamouring for the past 5-10 years? A top 6 winger and an offensive, puck moving defenceman. We got the top 6 winger but still don't have that defenceman - and not only traded away one of our veteran D but also one of our most NHL-ready PMD//PPQB prospects. But, we've got a goalie who was injured for two months and makes $6M salary despite being past his prime and having similar stats to a guy we just traded away for less than expected.

It was either trade Bieksa for something or lose him for nothing. He clearly wasn't getting re-signed.

Clendening is a PMD with mobility issues. He is an expendable asset when we got Corrado and depth defensively in our prospect pool. Also we have Beiga who did his job while he was here so I can see him as a call up again. Fedun could also be a call up.

A healthy Miller is going to play more than 45 games next season. Wins are the biggest stat and if he can put up 35+ wins which he was on pace for last season then I don't see any issue next season.

[Maginator]

"Hey, let's just rehash a bunch of moves again in a new thread!

buddy it's mid August there isn't much else to talk about

[hearditall]

An argument that's made the rounds on CDC, for sure. While you may have made it to the 16 team playoff structure, you don't have an equal 1/16th of a chance at winning. You start off with a disadvantage from a home ice perspective to begin with, so that immediately makes it harder for you to advance.

Then you can factor in the actual historical odds of bottom seeds having success in the playoffs to see just how legitimate your chances are. Some teams have made great runs from the 8th seed, but very rarely does that happen and even more rarely does it result in winning the cup.

It's great to be positive (although I'm not sure "WHAAA, WHAAA" as a response to other posters is positive) but most businesses don't succeed without someone there as a realist as well.

Miller cost us Barzal (or insert favourite prospect name here). No Miller signing, means maybe not quite as good a team, means a better overall pick.

Maybe he could have signed a veteran backup to split duties with Lack, then let that veteran walk after a year or so as Markstrom became ready, keeping Lack and Markstrom. Sure, we might have lost a few more games, but then maybe instead of a 3rd we didn't have before, we get a higher 1st - say instead of 23rd overall we get 15th, or better if we hadn't made the playoffs.

Then there's the cap space it would have afforded us. I'd say likely $3-4M more in cap space, and then we could have signed a defenceman. Just for an example, we sign Griess for the $1M cap hit he got instead of Miller. That's a $5M savings in cap. Dan Boyle got $4.5M on a two year deal.

I'm not saying Boyle would have come here or been the right choice even, but having the option to improve somewhere other than our goaltending (considering it has arguably been our strongest position depth-wise) certainly would have been nice.

So we should've tanked to get Barzal which we had a crystal ball to know exactly what pick he was going to go at & we would've had to plan to win/loose enough to be 16th, all because of the crystal ball...........

I've watched Barzal all through his life & am a big fan/supporter of him. But to be honest, watching him lately, he has been a bit disappointing. Not sure if he has enough grit/heart to go along with his natural talents???

I'm quite happy with Boesser.

Boyle is an old old man...

Brisbois (3rd) is better to have than Boyle now...

[nuck luck]

 

But the Eddie Lack trade! grumble grumble

/s

Good reminder to all Canucks fans who don't like JB that he's actually making some good moves.

 

Obviously you misunderstood the reason why so many of us fans are pissed.... it's not the players bj is bringing in, it's what he is giving up to bring in these players. To make matters worse, he's overpaying these players for their potential "tangibles" and not their actual play. Who does this with every contract?

Drafts.... I don't have an issue with. Players he brought in....not what I think we should target but I can live with it.

The cap the team is paying for our bottom 6 players is just stupid...and we need to include Sbisa here.

Overpaying for every trade just doesn't make sense...

Making lateral moves and giving away picks weakens our future...

Older, declining players for our youth with potential is the exact opposite of what he proposed...

Basically, everything else he's done is a head scratcher.... Seriously, other than Vrbata and Bae, what move has he made where it was unanimous (cdc, media, other fan bases, etc) that it was a good move or fair deal? (Only considering what bj gave up to get said player or the contracts he gave them....and don't forget the NTC that bj loves so much).

The only things he's done that I'm onboard with, so far, is his draft picks and possibly the players on the team. What he paid to get them and the new contracts he's given them.... complete train wreck.

What we have here is a person who seems to have a high degree of knowledge in drafting players...but absolutely no idea of what a GM should be concerned with. If he were the head of scouting....No problem. GM....No clue.

[thejazz97]

The only things he's done that I'm onboard with, so far, is his draft picks and possibly the players on the team. What he paid to get them and the new contracts he's given them.... complete train wreck.

So you like his drafting and you like the team... why are you complaining?

Yeah, maybe he's overpaid a bit for his players... but he's got a plan. See if he can play it out.

[elvis15]

He might have a plan, but overpaying both in trades and contracts can make it harder to build the team as he'd like. Throwing in one asset now might mean a player we don't have in future - even as an asset in another trade. A little more cap spent on players than is needed because they fill a different role on our roster also prevents us from filling gaps in other areas or signing players.

[elvis15]

It was either trade Bieksa for something or lose him for nothing. He clearly wasn't getting re-signed.

Clendening is a PMD with mobility issues. He is an expendable asset when we got Corrado and depth defensively in our prospect pool. Also we have Beiga who did his job while he was here so I can see him as a call up again. Fedun could also be a call up.

A healthy Miller is going to play more than 45 games next season. Wins are the biggest stat and if he can put up 35+ wins which he was on pace for last season then I don't see any issue next season.

To be clear, I'm not unhappy we traded away Bieksa since he was getting older and we likely weren't going to re-sign him. Where I'm unhappy is with the strong chance we'd be doing so to one or both of our veteran defenceman (Hamhuis could still go) yet choose to spend $6M on a goalie in his mid 30's who isn't the Vezina winner he once was when we have younger players entering their prime during a stage where we're re-tooling and not expected to compete anyway.

Same idea with Clendening. I'd lean to more of a PP quarterback than a PMD, but if they weren't happy with him and thought he'd stagnate as one of our two extra D sitting in the press box then ok. But considering he was our most NHL-ready prospect that could fit in a power play role (not really Corrado or Biegas' forte, could be more Fedun's style) we didn't do a lot to replace losing that other than re-sign Weber.

Let me put it this way, would you have preferred to keep a good, young goalie we already had and use the cap space to fix what we were lacking in our D (much as we did short term with our top 6) - especially since we don't have a lot of prospect depth in that area? Or do you think Brisebois as a return for Lack is enough of a fix that he'd be better than anything we could have used that cap space on through trade or free agency?

buddy it's mid August there isn't much else to talk about

I don't disagree, but we've already been talking about these moves and Benning in general in other threads. I'm not sure another one will settle the debate once and for all.

So we should've tanked to get Barzal which we had a crystal ball to know exactly what pick he was going to go at & we would've had to plan to win/loose enough to be 16th, all because of the crystal ball...........

I've watched Barzal all through his life & am a big fan/supporter of him. But to be honest, watching him lately, he has been a bit disappointing. Not sure if he has enough grit/heart to go along with his natural talents???

I'm quite happy with Boesser.

Boyle is an old old man...

Brisbois (3rd) is better to have than Boyle now...

*woosh*

I think you've missed the point, which I explained further in another post. It's not specifically that we go after Barzal (hence the "insert favourite prospect name here", or Boyle, hence the "not saying"), it's just a counter point to saying we should just be happy the Miller signing allowed us to have redundancy at the goalie position and be able to trade Lack for less than what we thought he'd be worth.

Then again, as I noted before as well, wouldn't you be happy with the option to pick 15th overall and decide to trade down a bit in the first (and gain a 2nd most likely) if you still felt Boeser was the BPA but would be available later when it came time for your pick? Or how about being able to use that pick to put together a deal like Calgary did to get Hamilton and fix that hole in our defensive prospect depth better than any 3rd round pick we choose to make?

[groovy]

Considering the comparison of having Miller or Lack as a starter this past season, Miller was a good choice as it would have been a lot of pressure on Lack if we didn't find a veteran backup to share the load or had gone with Markstrom but he'd crapped the bed. Miller had an advantage last season being a more experienced goalie, even if the numbers at the end of the year had them very closely matched. This coming year is much more arguable, with Miller another year older and coming off a two month injury where Lack has gained more experience starting in a significant number of games.

Certainly not the point I was making though, which is that saying "but we got Brisebois so we should be happy" isn't really that valid if you consider the alternatives and how they also could have improved our assets going forward. If you didn't see anything of interest ahead of Boeser in my example, then maybe we could have still picked him after trading down from 15 and getting an early 2nd round pick. Or, maybe we didn't even do that well and ended up with a lottery pick, and then won the draft lottery. Lots of ways to argue the point beyond "we should be glad we have Miller and be happy with the return for Lack."

And those things are the same. Going with Miller meant we likely ended up with a higher draft pick (as Lack would have still needed solid support as a starter), and also reduced our available options to improve the team elsewhere. Maybe one would have offset the other, say if we brought in a $4M defender instead of Miller who really helped solidify our team and make Lack's job as a starter easier, so that we ended up in a similar spot in the standings.

Like I say, plenty of ways to argue hypotheticals. Maybe Lack and Markstrom would be further ahead in their development and we do better this coming year. Maybe we sign Lack since Markstrom needs more time but at a deal much less than $6M because he loves it here and takes a discount but isn't an overpaid free agent signing. And the money we saved for two seasons allowed us to get a significant piece elsewhere in the roster, and still having some extra space after to keep from being as tight to the cap as we are with Miller.

Or, maybe they both crap the bed and we end up with McDavid even without the lottery's help.

Goaltending's important, sure, even if we've seen numerous examples of pretty good goalies winning the cup behind great teams while great goalies with pretty good teams don't win. Not much of that matters when we're more of a good team though, and aren't really hoping to win the cup, just win our fair share and be in a lot of games by being competitive.

Nope, not at all. We already had the Sedins and Hamhuis, and Vrbata was an addition we needed as we didn't have a young player ready to step into that role just yet. Add to that I suggested we could have gotten someone else to improve in other areas if we didn't have an extra $6M in cap due to Miller.

[groovy]

Considering the comparison of having Miller or Lack as a starter this past season, Miller was a good choice as it would have been a lot of pressure on Lack if we didn't find a veteran backup to share the load or had gone with Markstrom but he'd crapped the bed. Miller had an advantage last season being a more experienced goalie, even if the numbers at the end of the year had them very closely matched. This coming year is much more arguable, with Miller another year older and coming off a two month injury where Lack has gained more experience starting in a significant number of games.

Certainly not the point I was making though, which is that saying "but we got Brisebois so we should be happy" isn't really that valid if you consider the alternatives and how they also could have improved our assets going forward. If you didn't see anything of interest ahead of Boeser in my example, then maybe we could have still picked him after trading down from 15 and getting an early 2nd round pick. Or, maybe we didn't even do that well and ended up with a lottery pick, and then won the draft lottery. Lots of ways to argue the point beyond "we should be glad we have Miller and be happy with the return for Lack."

And those things are the same. Going with Miller meant we likely ended up with a higher draft pick (as Lack would have still needed solid support as a starter), and also reduced our available options to improve the team elsewhere. Maybe one would have offset the other, say if we brought in a $4M defender instead of Miller who really helped solidify our team and make Lack's job as a starter easier, so that we ended up in a similar spot in the standings.

Like I say, plenty of ways to argue hypotheticals. Maybe Lack and Markstrom would be further ahead in their development and we do better this coming year. Maybe we sign Lack since Markstrom needs more time but at a deal much less than $6M because he loves it here and takes a discount but isn't an overpaid free agent signing. And the money we saved for two seasons allowed us to get a significant piece elsewhere in the roster, and still having some extra space after to keep from being as tight to the cap as we are with Miller.

Or, maybe they both crap the bed and we end up with McDavid even without the lottery's help.

Goaltending's important, sure, even if we've seen numerous examples of pretty good goalies winning the cup behind great teams while great goalies with pretty good teams don't win. Not much of that matters when we're more of a good team though, and aren't really hoping to win the cup, just win our fair share and be in a lot of games by being competitive.

Nope, not at all. We already had the Sedins and Hamhuis, and Vrbata was an addition we needed as we didn't have a young player ready to step into that role just yet. Add to that I suggested we could have gotten someone else to improve in other areas if we didn't have an extra $6M in cap due to Miller.

Is this a personal diary of ifs and maybes? What is your point?

[hearditall]

To be clear, I'm not unhappy we traded away Bieksa since he was getting older and we likely weren't going to re-sign him. Where I'm unhappy is with the strong chance we'd be doing so to one or both of our veteran defenceman (Hamhuis could still go) yet choose to spend $6M on a goalie in his mid 30's who isn't the Vezina winner he once was when we have younger players entering their prime during a stage where we're re-tooling and not expected to compete anyway.

Same idea with Clendening. I'd lean to more of a PP quarterback than a PMD, but if they weren't happy with him and thought he'd stagnate as one of our two extra D sitting in the press box then ok. But considering he was our most NHL-ready prospect that could fit in a power play role (not really Corrado or Biegas' forte, could be more Fedun's style) we didn't do a lot to replace losing that other than re-sign Weber.

Let me put it this way, would you have preferred to keep a good, young goalie we already had and use the cap space to fix what we were lacking in our D (much as we did short term with our top 6) - especially since we don't have a lot of prospect depth in that area? Or do you think Brisebois as a return for Lack is enough of a fix that he'd be better than anything we could have used that cap space on through trade or free agency?

I don't disagree, but we've already been talking about these moves and Benning in general in other threads. I'm not sure another one will settle the debate once and for all.

*woosh*

I think you've missed the point, which I explained further in another post. It's not specifically that we go after Barzal (hence the "insert favourite prospect name here", or Boyle, hence the "not saying"), it's just a counter point to saying we should just be happy the Miller signing allowed us to have redundancy at the goalie position and be able to trade Lack for less than what we thought he'd be worth.

Then again, as I noted before as well, wouldn't you be happy with the option to pick 15th overall and decide to trade down a bit in the first (and gain a 2nd most likely) if you still felt Boeser was the BPA but would be available later when it came time for your pick? Or how about being able to use that pick to put together a deal like Calgary did to get Hamilton and fix that hole in our defensive prospect depth better than any 3rd round pick we choose to make?

How is Lack worth more? Only to certain Canuck Fans he is. JB & TL & the rest of the NHL thought Lack was traded at fair value. If he was worth sooo much more than why weren't other teams STEALING him from us???

[elvis15]

How is Lack worth more? Only to certain Canuck Fans he is. JB & TL & the rest of the NHL thought Lack was traded at fair value. If he was worth sooo much more than why weren't other teams STEALING him from us???

I'm not sure anyone said Lack was traded at fair value, but rather market value. There's a difference. If the market doesn't understand quite what a player can bring to the table, but we're bound and determined to trade him, we'll get a lower market value then what his actual value might bring.

Some will say market value is his actual value, but a player can have more value to one team than another and we settled since Benning wanted to keep Miller and thought Markstrom has higher upside (and not enough value in trade). But then even Benning noted he was trying to get a 2nd for him, yet that's not what we got, hence the "less than what we thought he'd be worth" comment.

Is this a personal diary of ifs and maybes? What is your point?

My point is for others using ifs and maybes that the same argument can be applied both ways. Or was that not apparent since I had been replying to others saying we should be thankful things turned out as they did.

[Mattrek]

I'm not sure anyone said Lack was traded at fair value, but rather market value. There's a difference. If the market doesn't understand quite what a player can bring to the table, but we're bound and determined to trade him, we'll get a lower market value then what his actual value might bring.

Some will say market value is his actual value, but a player can have more value to one team than another and we settled since Benning wanted to keep Miller and thought Markstrom has higher upside (and not enough value in trade). But then even Benning noted he was trying to get a 2nd for him, yet that's not what we got, hence the "less than what we thought he'd be worth" comment.

My point is for others using ifs and maybes that the same argument can be applied both ways. Or was that not apparent since I had been replying to others saying we should be thankful things turned out as they did.

Seriously? Someone is only worth what another team will pay for him period. If there's 29 other teams out there and the most anyone is willing to pay is a 3rd and a 7th then regardless of how any fan values him, that's his actual value (this coming from a huge Lack fan). It works that way with everything in the world. The value is set at what someone else will pay for it. You can ask for more, but that's not the true assessed value.

[elvis15]

Seriously? Someone is only worth what another team will pay for him period. If there's 29 other teams out there and the most anyone is willing to pay is a 3rd and a 7th then regardless of how any fan values him, that's his actual value (this coming from a huge Lack fan). It works that way with everything in the world. The value is set at what someone else will pay for it. You can ask for more, but that's not the true assessed value.

Seriously. I guess Benning was wrong and there is no validity to him thinking Lack would be worth a 2nd. But then teams (one reportedly at least) were willing to part with a 2nd, so actually that is his market value even if we didn't accept it?

And then there's how much value a player brings to a team regardless of their market value, and those certainly aren't always the same.

[Crabcakes]

Seriously? Someone is only worth what another team will pay for him period. If there's 29 other teams out there and the most anyone is willing to pay is a 3rd and a 7th then regardless of how any fan values him, that's his actual value (this coming from a huge Lack fan). It works that way with everything in the world. The value is set at what someone else will pay for it. You can ask for more, but that's not the true assessed value.

In the world of appraisal, there is appraised value, assessed value and there is market value.

Appraised value is the value as estimated based on comparables and is accepted by the courts and banks for financing in the case of real estate (if market value is unknown). This is not constant and is affected by market conditions like the need to sell quickly.

Assessed value is similar but is less accurate. In real estate, the assessed value is determined statistically by a mathematical model. It is more subject to error than an individual appraisal and corrections are often made by augmenting with individual appraisal. This is used by municipal governments for property taxes.

Market value is the true value because it is actual and not estimated. Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) accept only market value as true value.

So JB may have appraised or estimated Lacks value as a 2nd round pick but at the moment the trade was made, his true market value was a 3rd. It is fair to say that several month's later the market value would have been different.