Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Canucks Four Biggest Non-Mistakes Over the Last Year


IBatch

Recommended Posts

Canucks dont have a cap management problem. Canucks have a ton of veteran players nearing the end of their long term deal. Thats what happens when you spend years at the top trying to win with the same core you end up locking them up long term and it ends up hurting you a few years when all the players start aging, So there are not in the same position as canucks.

Take the kings for example, in 4 years they will still have

Gaborik 37 @ 6 cap hit

Brown 35 @ 7.25 cap hit

Quick 35 @ 7 cap hit

Carter 34 @ 7 cap hit

Kopitar & Doughty get raises in that time they will 29 & 31 making 7.5-8+

They will still have:

Martinez, 30 @ 4 cap hit

Muzzing 29 @ 4 cap hit

Thats not even including what happens with the Richards situation. The could still have him locked up @ 5.2 as well

Take the Ducks

In 5 years they will have 3 players all over 35 taking up 23.75 cap.

Take the Hawks

In 5 years they will have 6 players all over 32 taking up 42.3 cap. That includes a 41 year old Hossa

Take the Penguins

In 7 years the will have 4 players over the age of 34 taking up 32.25 cap

Its really just a part of all teams that go all in when there core is their prime, they lock them up to long term contracts to keep the cap hit relatively low. Once those players hit their down turn it looks hard to justify having someone like Gaborik taking a 6 mill cap hit at the age of 37. But it order to give their team the best shot it needs to happen.

The good news for the canucks is, over the next 3 years most of these contracts begin to come off the books, we have over 44 million that can come off the books from UFAs, 35 million are on player over 30 so a good chance we move on from those deal and replace them with our upcoming youth which must will be on ELC and RF status. Teams that are powerhouses right now will be on the hooks and canucks will have a ton of cap space and to make a strong push. So really cap management isnt an issue.

bang on
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Matthias, you can call it hindsight but many people had the foresight to say we should move him at the deadline while his value was at it's highest. But, I'm glad we were so focused on trying to make the playoffs and win the Stanley Cup this very second because it's impossible to have a winning atmosphere if you lose a few more games than we did, but losing like we did in the playoffs is much better for the team.

They could of easily re-signed Matthias and let go of Dorsett. They took a chance, they hoped Matthias would continue his stellar play into the playoffs and he didn't. This happens all the time around the league. Green could of got a lot more than Matthias and the caps chose not to move him. This is not even worth stressing over.

This is the kind of argument I love. We know of a rumour of San Jose offering their 2nd but since it was next years not this years, Benning turned it down. So I say we'll maybe the 2nd we got from Anaheim isn't the exact and final value of Bieksa and there can be differing opinions on that, yet you can say with certainty that because that deal wasn't signed and documented it can't possibly be a possible value for Bieksa.

This is the kind of argument that makes zero sense. Your're trying to argue a rumor, a rumor! Zero credibility and zero facts to support to boot. Just like I said in my last post you can't be so certain of things you do not know.

Miller's cap isn't an issue as we're going through a transition? Having a similar but younger and less expensive goalie in Lack isn't an issue while we're in transition so long as we can keep a reasonable team in front of him and a backup we can trust. But again, $6M more in cap space couldn't possibly help with that in any way.

Miller is here to mentor Markstrom and help keep us competitive management stated they want a veteran goalie. No need to be sooooo high-strung. They chose Markstrom over Lack to be a part of the new core. Miller's cap isn't an issue because we are in a transitional phase where we shed veterans that we no longer need. Example Bieksa for a 2nd. We have a lot of UFAs next off-season and Benning as stated if young guys are ready room shall be made.

If you're ok with not making every advantage we can count while we're drafting mid to late in the first round because we're still trying to be a playoff team before our players like the Sedins retire, then good for you. Never mind that the brightest parts of the future we have were both acquired as top 10 picks and we could use more of that in a big way, but let's keep trying to win over just being a good team that's tough to play against but will be able to rebuild faster.

This is out of context with what I said.

Do you honestly see us rebuilding while the Sedins are here? Rebuild now would suggest moving them. Also we would force young guys who are not ready into the roster which could affect how they develop in a negative way. We need to get them ready for when the Sedins are gone before we even decide on rebuilding in any way. We need some sort of succession.

The goal is to create a new core while shedding the old one. We want to stay competitive during this time in order to develop our youngsters in a good environment. They want Markstrom to be a part of that new core and they believe having a veteran goalie like Miller is not only good for keeping us competitive and good to have for Markstrom's development.

We have the old core(Sedins, Elder, etc.), the transitional players(Vbrata, Miller etc.) and the players who we want to be the new core(Horvat, Baertschi, etc.). When looking at the big picture we shouldn't be worrying about the transitional guys unless they aren't doing their job well enough which we will have to wait for since the puck hasn't dropped.

You say every little thing counts but you can probably go through every GM and find little things they could of done differently. No need to be so high-strung over the little things, they are of little significance in the grand scheme of things.

But the outlook as we know if from Benning is he wants to transition from old to new while remaining competitive. I don't think he's of the mind that we could have won the cup last year or are going to this year, so it becomes a fine line of how much adding players short term to make the playoffs helps up versus playing who we have (and trading smartly for the future) and living with the maybe being a lottery pick. That doesn't have to be that far off philosophically or strategically.

So pessimistic in your theory with no credible support. His moves suggest changing the culture for and while building up the new core.

These transitional guys (Miller, Vrbata, Prust, Bartkowski, Dorsett, etc) are all here to help keep us competitive while helping bring up our youth, they are not here in the long term. We need depth in order to be competitive and in case youth are not ready. I mean Corrado and Baertschi are pretty much guarantees to make our team while Benning himself sees Virtanen and others competing for a spot. He's even gone out to say that if these guys are ready room shall be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • So they would have waited to re-sign Matthias until he continued to contribute at a high level, when his price tag would only go up even after Benning had noted it was too high already? And the Caps might have had the same amount of points as us, but I'd definitely argue they were much more of a contender not in the middle of a re-tool than we are.
  • And you're trying to argue there's only one possible value. <_<
  • Just because someone chose one player over another doesn't make them right. Chara was traded over Redden (and then Milbury traded him again!). It happens. And being a team with flexibility in cap space while keeping younger players over old where possible during a time of transition is worth more in my opinion than whatever level of mentorship Miller actually brings above what Melanson offers.
  • No, it's not out of context. The initial part of my point (again, go back and read) is that we haven't made enough of a number of deals and just being happy with what we have now is not good enough. Maybe we can't change them now, but why not look back and learn from areas that haven't looked to be strong deals in retrospect? Leave the semantics about rebuild vs retool out of it as I've never once talked about tanking (although we will be rebuilding more than retooling once the Sedins have left).
  • I basically say the same thing as you in talking about the goal of this current retool. I don't however look at every deal negatively for the players they've brought in. What I am doing is questioning what we paid to get them or what we are paying them to stay over other options. If we had someone ready to play Vrbata's role, then why sign him? If we had someone who was as capable to be a big body or physical presence as Dorsett and Prust, then why trade for them instead? There aren't players that can help us on the ice as well as them and our prospects aren't pushing them for spots. If you ask the same question of Miller though then Lack was a pretty obvious answer as someone capable of contending for the same role - and he showed it when he got to take over during Miller's injury.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add - good points are been made here on the validity of the moves over the last year, and a critical eye against them as well. Obviously we don't have a true sample size (yet) on what good this will do, and things will change over the next season as a result.

It takes five years for a GM to accomplish a new core. Benning's focus the first year has been the clubs forwards and stabilizing the crease. Hopefully the D will get the same treatment and in another year this club will be threatening come playoff time. Good job so far given the assets and contracts he has to work with. Can't wait for the puck to drop and witness a tougher, more energetic Canuck team in action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's all I'm saying. Not sure why it's turned into something that you all love Benning and I hate him or something. I agree we can't win on everything but I think we've more consistently lost on our bigger deals and signings and that's worrying for me.

But the outlook as we know if from Benning is he wants to transition from old to new while remaining competitive. I don't think he's of the mind that we could have won the cup last year or are going to this year, so it becomes a fine line of how much adding players short term to make the playoffs helps up versus playing who we have (and trading smartly for the future) and living with the maybe being a lottery pick. That doesn't have to be that far off philosophically or strategically.

We're all missing information, but the repeated rumours of better offers, letting players walk to free agency when we aren't contending, and making a move for players only to turn around and flip them together for one piece in return are definitely suggestive of an trend.

Well, you are putting it reasonably, but I disagree on all points.

1. It's too soon to say if we've lost or won anything.

2. He has said that if you get bad it's hard to get back, and I see what you're saying, but I think he is fundamentally opposed to a little deadline sell-off and nosedive. Pure speculation for sure.

3. I loved Richardson, but he doesn't fit the plan of bringing up young guys, like we all want. Matthias is garbage. Stanton I like, but he is just an average #7-8.

4. Rumours of him getting fleeced do not come off as credible to me at all. The narrative of extra unnecessary payment is pure horse$hit, dreamt up by laughable journalists for an emotional and guillable fanbase. Here's an argument that is just as good as this narrative: "I think we got good value in the trades". Boom. Trump card. If a CDC'er, and Botchford, think it's overpayment, then it must be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • So they would have waited to re-sign Matthias until he continued to contribute at a high level, when his price tag would only go up even after Benning had noted it was too high already? And the Caps might have had the same amount of points as us, but I'd definitely argue they were much more of a contender not in the middle of a re-tool than we are.
  • And you're trying to argue there's only one possible value. <_<
  • Just because someone chose one player over another doesn't make them right. Chara was traded over Redden (and then Milbury traded him again!). It happens. And being a team with flexibility in cap space while keeping younger players over old where possible during a time of transition is worth more in my opinion than whatever level of mentorship Miller actually brings above what Melanson offers.
  • No, it's not out of context. The initial part of my point (again, go back and read) is that we haven't made enough of a number of deals and just being happy with what we have now is not good enough. Maybe we can't change them now, but why not look back and learn from areas that haven't looked to be strong deals in retrospect? Leave the semantics about rebuild vs retool out of it as I've never once talked about tanking (although we will be rebuilding more than retooling once the Sedins have left).
  • I basically say the same thing as you in talking about the goal of this current retool. I don't however look at every deal negatively for the players they've brought in. What I am doing is questioning what we paid to get them or what we are paying them to stay over other options. If we had someone ready to play Vrbata's role, then why sign him? If we had someone who was as capable to be a big body or physical presence as Dorsett and Prust, then why trade for them instead? There aren't players that can help us on the ice as well as them and our prospects aren't pushing them for spots. If you ask the same question of Miller though then Lack was a pretty obvious answer as someone capable of contending for the same role - and he showed it when he got to take over during Miller's injury.

Matthias re-signing was a theory. Main point was they kept him for the playoffs and he faltered. Could we have moved him? yup but we didn't . Players on expiring contracts don't get traded all the time. We saw an opportunity to make the playoffs and thought keeping the team we have would help us do so.

You're also trying to base your arguments on players values, like Bieksa, off of rumors which it not credible at all.

Benning stated that they were not comfortable with not having a veteran goalie. Personally I don't see Miller a problem. He may not be the goalie he once was but he is more than capable of doing his part in helping us stay competitive. You say Melanson could mentor yet history has shown in Vancouver that having a veteran goalie is good. Luongo/Schneider is a prime example.

He made choices on certain players and we have yet to see whether or not they were the right ones. Patience is a virtue my friend.

I see what you're pointing out. You're speculating on what could of happened and what might of been better but what's done is done and you should get over it. Stop being so high-strung on what could of been and move forward. Nothing gets accomplished from stressing over the past.

Have a little more optimism for the future since that is Benning's most important job. What happens now is of little significance compared to what happens after the Sedins are gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making a big deal over stuff that's of little significance when looking at the big picture Elvis.

Every move has its reasoning and whether or not they were right won't be known at this moment. Right or wrong those moves Benning made won't be franchise defining, what will be is how Benning builds the new core of players after the Sedins are gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I like the house I live in and I paid a reasonable price for it.... Had I paid more than what the market suggests, secured a mortgage rate higher than the going rate AND I tossed in a smaller condo unit to acquire this house, I wouldn't be as happy. I would still like the house, but I wouldn't be happy with what it cost.

So there's 30 development companies, and they are each allowed to own no more than 23 houses, unless they are on the damaged list, but they can choose from 1500 available houses...and the houses age quickly and sign with new owners, and each company is only allowed to spend a certain amount on all their houses, and they can't sell them, but they can barter them.....wait.....did this stop making sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's all I'm saying. Not sure why it's turned into something that you all love Benning and I hate him or something. I agree we can't win on everything but I think we've more consistently lost on our bigger deals and signings and that's worrying for me.

But the outlook as we know if from Benning is he wants to transition from old to new while remaining competitive. I don't think he's of the mind that we could have won the cup last year or are going to this year, so it becomes a fine line of how much adding players short term to make the playoffs helps up versus playing who we have (and trading smartly for the future) and living with the maybe being a lottery pick. That doesn't have to be that far off philosophically or strategically.

We're all missing information, but the repeated rumours of better offers, letting players walk to free agency when we aren't contending, and making a move for players only to turn around and flip them together for one piece in return are definitely suggestive of an trend.

I think the salient question is why do the Canucks need to remain competitive through this transitional period?

In the Linden interview today, he said the 2 most important parts of managements plan are:

  1. Drafting
  2. Development

To my mind, remaining competitive is all about development.

The reason is twofold.

  1. Players get better when they are pressed to play harder and perform better than they have before. This comes from playing against players who are better than you and also from playing against players who are trying their hardest. In other words playing in meaningful games when if you lose you are out of the race for the cup. This is about reaching a higher level of competition. That's how players get better.
  2. The best players or character players raise their game in the big games. Placing players in this situation helps you to assess whether they have the right stuff to help the team win a cup. We see who raises their game and who does not in the big games. But you have to have big games. So, remaining competitive is also about player assessment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the salient question is why do the Canucks need to remain competitive through this transitional period?

In the Linden interview today, he said the 2 most important parts of managements plan are:

  • Drafting
  • Development
To my mind, remaining competitive is all about development.

The reason is twofold.

  • Players get better when they are pressed to play harder and perform better than they have before. This comes from playing against players who are better than you and also from playing against players who are trying their hardest. In other words playing in meaningful games when if you lose you are out of the race for the cup. This is about reaching a higher level of competition. That's how players get better.
  • The best players or character players raise their game in the big games. Placing players in this situation helps you to assess whether they have the right stuff to help the team win a cup. We see who raises their game and who does not in the big games. But you have to have big games. So, remaining competitive is also about player assessment.

Totally agree that drafting and development are absolutely critical. But I don't know if the staying competitive and mentorship piece is as critical as getting elite talent which mostly comes from top 5 draft picks.

I'm not sure which veterans mentored Toews, Kane, Keith and Seabrook. Maybe Hossa but that seemed more about bringing in a player when they're ready to win rather than the early stages of learning.

LA with Kopitar, Carter, Doughty and Quick didn't have notable mentors that I can remember.

Mario mentored Crosby but Sid has only one cup and the Pens are hardly a dynasty.

I agree in theory that mentorship and competitiveness aids development but the right talented young player drafted top 5 would be a leader themselves.

It is exciting that the Canucks have young players coming up but Benning and crew have to be world class drafters to really be a contender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree that drafting and development are absolutely critical. But I don't know if the staying competitive and mentorship piece is as critical as getting elite talent which mostly comes from top 5 draft picks.

I'm not sure which veterans mentored Toews, Kane, Keith and Seabrook. Maybe Hossa but that seemed more about bringing in a player when they're ready to win rather than the early stages of learning.

LA with Kopitar, Carter, Doughty and Quick didn't have notable mentors that I can remember.

Mario mentored Crosby but Sid has only one cup and the Pens are hardly a dynasty.

I agree in theory that mentorship and competitiveness aids development but the right talented young player drafted top 5 would be a leader themselves.

It is exciting that the Canucks have young players coming up but Benning and crew have to be world class drafters to really be a contender.

Why do I get the feeling that you didn't read the whole post? I'm talking about why should they remain competitive. Not about mentorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree that drafting and development are absolutely critical. But I don't know if the staying competitive and mentorship piece is as critical as getting elite talent which mostly comes from top 5 draft picks.

I'm not sure which veterans mentored Toews, Kane, Keith and Seabrook. Maybe Hossa but that seemed more about bringing in a player when they're ready to win rather than the early stages of learning.

LA with Kopitar, Carter, Doughty and Quick didn't have notable mentors that I can remember.

Mario mentored Crosby but Sid has only one cup and the Pens are hardly a dynasty.

I agree in theory that mentorship and competitiveness aids development but the right talented young player drafted top 5 would be a leader themselves.

It is exciting that the Canucks have young players coming up but Benning and crew have to be world class drafters to really be a contender.

Here's the thing. Our team just isn't bad enough to pick top 5. As long as the Sedins are playing and are healthy, with good goaltending we'll be middle of the pack at worst. So we have to draft extremely well and develop even better to have a solid lineup. Saying that, the type of players we'll be selecting will be better players for said development under a good mentorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

&nbsp;

is the top four d-man you're referring to Garrison or Bieksa? Doesn't really matter, the common opinion on this board was neither was worth more than a bag of pucks. Remember Jason "can't hit the net" Garrison? I find it quite funny how so many just want a certain player gone and when it happens complain we didn't get enough for him.

Millers deal isn't monstrous by any stretch of the imagination. He's certainly not making elite money for a goalie. Riinne signed a seven year deal at $7m per before the last lockout when the cap was lower and with it known the cap would be going down. Lundqvist signed a seven year deal a year ago with a $8.5m cap hit that starts at $11m and ends at $5.5m when he's 39. Those are are "monstrous deals". And those guys were re-signings as opposed to going to the open market where other teams are making offers. Millers deal was a reasonable one.

Is Vey younger than Santorelli? I think he is. So we successfully got younger. This has been said many times but according to Linden, Santo was offered a one year deal that he turned it down wanting a multi-year. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have offered a multi-year deal to a guy that was begging for a job the year before and then spent half the season injured. He wound up signing a one year deal anyway but by then we had acquired Vey which meant his spot was gone. No great loss as far as I'm concerned. It's not like Santo was going to become more than he already was.

I have no problem trading a 2nd for Vey. A 2nd has less than a 30% chance of even playing 200 nhl games let alone winding up a decent, good, or impact player. Even at that they require 3 or 4 years of development. Getting a player that's already gone through that development and had success is a far better gamble than actually using that pick. Vey was a rookie give him a chance.

&nbsp;

Yes, it was Garrison.

Please don't include me in the group that wanted to trade Garrison... However, I wanted to trade Bieksa for a good price earlier when he had more value. Funny how people will include another persons comments and attach it to a random person's reply to make his argument. Lets refrain from doing this and keep this subject on topic.... Otherwise, please find a quote where I said I wanted Garrison traded.

If memory serves me correct.... I remember "leading point producer on our D" Garrison who was traded well below market value and had signed a very reasonable discounted contract for 4 more years. I can't remember when another top 4 Dman in his 20's, with a discounted contract for 4 more years, was traded for only a 2nd round pick....

** According to most people, a top 4 Dman (on a discounted contract for 4 more years) could be had for a 2nd round pick now because this is what bj got for Garrison....something about the value being what another is willing to pay? Why even bother drafting for a top 4 D now?....if Dmen are this cheap, were better off trading for them because it should be easy to acquire dmen for cheap. Did I get this right?

Miller....c'mon. Your having a good laugh if you think that we didn't overpay Miller.... and this is what bothers me about having a drafting scout as GM, bj has no idea on how to negotiate a contract.

- Miller had just finished an abysmal Playoff series with a pretty good D in front of him....

- he is an aging goaltender who has been on the decline and is very limited with potential (not to mention that one good season does not equate to a great career)

- his Playoffs career could be summed up with a simple "meh"...one good year.

- he's been known to be disruptive and throw his team under the bus (Lucic)

- he was not sought after by other GM's and the offer bj gave was the first and only

- he included a NTC when it wasn't necessary...but did it to get the deal done (seems like it's a habit of his to toss in a sweetener to seal the deal).

- he had every right to ask Miller to prove his value after the previous Playoffs loss and decided to give him 3 years instead

- did I mention he's aging and accident prone....

- we just went a few seasons with goalie controversies...AND, we just traded away a MUCH better goalie with a lower cap and got minimal returns because of his NTC.

- and here's the kicker....there were plenty of capable goalies out there (at the time), lots of options, and benning had to go with nostalgia instead of putting this Organization first.

- goaltending IS NOT this teams biggest concerns and we need more than a little cosmetic surgery

Considering the above, YES.... 6 million for 3 years and a NTC is a RIDICULOUS amount and a real GM could have signed Miller for much less.

The goalies you mentioned deserved their contracts and had great seasons prior to receiving their contracts... Miller just finished an embarrassing 1st round series loss with a solid D in front of him, nothing can justify giving him this amount when there were no other GM's enquiring about his services.

Vey is younger....Santorelli is still fairly young, he's better and more proven. Lack is much younger than Miller and Kass is much younger than Prust....what's your point? So technically...we successfully got older with lesser quality players and lesser draft picks.

Given a choice between a player like Santorelli or Vey.... include size, experience, style, familiarity with the Canucks system, etc. and I'll take Santorelli today, yesterday and every other day! To make my decision easier... Santorelli wouldn't cost us an early 2nd round pick that we could have used to add to our prospect pool.

Because you think there's only a 30% chance...we shouldn't be concerned with giving away a 2nd round pick? I guess you don't have an issue with benning because his thought process seems to be identical... he repeatedly tosses in picks on his trades because he feels their not worth anything either. Which is a little odd cause he said he loves the draft...loves draft picks? 30% chance...20% chance...10% chance...doesn't matter what the odds are, we had a chance to re-sign a player for cheap that was better and more proven than Vey and we could have had a chance to acquire a good quality prospect. I will take a chance, no matter how small, over a zero percent chance of selecting a good prospect... and if you think that % is insignificant than we could have used it in a trade because I know other GM's understand the value of having an additional 2nd round pick.

I think most Canucks fans knew (Anaheim certainly did) that Vey didn't have the size, tenacity, two-way game, or face-off abilities to make it in the WC....or even the Pacific. After giving him a chance in his first year here, its become quite clear for the others.

I want Vey to succeed...and there is a chance that he will get better, a fairly good chance, but he will never be an elite player. But, I don't know him personally and this is all about the Canucks organization.... the team comes before any single player. We would have had a better season with Santorelli signed and using the pick in the draft rather than trading the pick for Vey.

At the worst, we could have traded Santorelli at the deadline for a 2nd and had 2 picks in the 2nd round... or we trade for a 3rd, regardless we get more draft picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the salient question is why do the Canucks need to remain competitive through this transitional period?

In the Linden interview today, he said the 2 most important parts of managements plan are:

  1. Drafting
  2. Development

To my mind, remaining competitive is all about development.

The reason is twofold.

  1. Players get better when they are pressed to play harder and perform better than they have before. This comes from playing against players who are better than you and also from playing against players who are trying their hardest. In other words playing in meaningful games when if you lose you are out of the race for the cup. This is about reaching a higher level of competition. That's how players get better.
  2. The best players or character players raise their game in the big games. Placing players in this situation helps you to assess whether they have the right stuff to help the team win a cup. We see who raises their game and who does not in the big games. But you have to have big games. So, remaining competitive is also about player assessment.

Sure, but what level of competitive is required to achieve that? Does 101 points and getting beat up by the Flames qualify, or would squeaking into the playoffs (or missing by a little bit) be pretty much just as good?

You can be competitive and not be a playoff team. So long as you're able to be in games every night and play the right way (versus just being bad or ignoring areas that help make the good teams good) then does it really matter if you win 5 more games or lose them?

If they're close enough, then why not reap the benefits of higher draft picks to allow for the possibility of better prospects in the draft? You can develop players in the right environment all you want, but if they're all late round picks then it makes it that much harder. We can already see who is having the most impact in our newly revitalized prospect pool: Horvat and soon to be Virtanen. Jensen, Shinkaruk, Gaunce, etc. aren't lighting the world on fire and giving us a lot of hope past the Sedins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

lol

Exactly what I said. Fair Value is Market Value... :shock::towel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

THE MARKET is FAIR VALUE PERIOD. 29 other teams had an opportunity to take advantage of your SUPER Value but they didn't take. 29 out of 30. YES 29. (I will BET U ANYTHING, U COUDN'T get a BETTER DEAL PERIOD..........

No one said he was better EXCEPT U and a few ???? :sadno::picard:

Brisbois might make U think differently. Just like Bo has made CORY pretty much forgotten.......

MILLER + BRISBOIS > lack.... period

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I get the feeling that you didn't read the whole post? I'm talking about why should they remain competitive. Not about mentorship.

Yes sorry, it was all about competitiveness. If that's the case when it comes to the West, no team has gotten anywhere in the last 4 yrs unless they are Chi or LA. 2011 canucks were 1 and done, Ana hasn't gotten to the conference finals til this year while STL and SJ make the playoffs but don't do any damage. I actually agree with the rebuild on the fly but I do not expect a conference finals run let alone cup winning team anytime soon. I keep my expectations low but hope for the best. Honestly I would rather see competitive hockey year over year and not win the cup than go through painful rebuilding years that are ugly to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...