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

Canucks Four Biggest Non-Mistakes Over the Last Year


IBatch

Recommended Posts

   

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.

Worst post of the year.

I love Santorelli, and I watched him as a rook in Florida. But if you don't know the difference between him and Vey, you haven't got a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

First I never specified YOU in my post. My words were "common opinion" and "many on this board".

Garrison was our leading point getter among d-men with 33 points and he was 29 when traded. Not so sure he was worth much more than a second though. I certainly wouldn't have traded a first for him. Decent offensively but doesn't play a physical game at all with his size. Possibly could have gotten a little more had we had the freedom to shop him. But with an ntc comes restrictions. I was mildly disappointed with the return but also understand that ntc's can cause that. We could have gotten more for Kessler had we been able to trade him any place as well.

Bieksa was no longer a top four d-man as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps a poor mans top four, but a very good bottom pair d-man. Again limited by a ntc I figure a second was a reasonable return. Would have preferred it to be this year but again those pesky ntc's tend to tie your hands somewhat.

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.

So you're basing your opinion of Miller based on 6 playoff games? Personally I think St Louis' problems ran deeper. The first thrid of the year they were among the top teams. They went looking for a goalie at the deadline because neither of theirs were doing very well. Miller had put up an excellent S% (.923) that year behind a poor Buffalo team. Yet somehow Miller "declined" on the trip to St Louis. I believe it was more of a team or system issue than their goaltending.

Another point I made repeatedly through this season is Miller has always been a goalie that comes out to cut angels. That's not our system. Here the goalie is expected to stay in the paint. Anytime you change the way a goalie plays you'll have a drop during the learning curve. So I'm not entirely sold there been the huge decline you're describing.

Of course those goalies earned their contracts. They are elite level goalies with elite level contracts. Miller's is a good goalie with a a "good goalie" contract. Thus I don't consider his deal anything close to "massive". That's just gross exaggeration.

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

Santo wasn't going to be part of our future. re-signing him would have been a stop gap. Nothing more. Again I wouldn't have offered him a multi-year deal. Let him walk. Vey could be here for the next decade. That's the better long term option.

Miller is also a stop gap. I won't be surprised if Lack ends up a career backup. I believe Markstrom (who is younger than Lack) is the better option. I believed all along Lack would be the one to be moved as it made the most sense to me.

  • There's a risk going with two goalies without that starter experience.
  • Lack is a ufa next summer. How much to re-sign him as our starter?
  • Should Markstrom prove to be the better goalie over the next 2 seasons how do you move a backup with a starters salary?
  • The team seemed to play better offensively with Miller in net. They took more risks. To me that was a sign they had more confidence in Miller than Lack.

And no, no GM would have got Miller for less. Unless it was a contender like LA where his wife was working.

Miller was brought in as a stop gap because Lack just wasn't very good after Lou was moved. It made sense. I keep seeing the argument that we're not a contender so Millers money could have been better spent on a d-man. What real difference does that make? A ufa d-man will be past his prime by the time this team is a contender as well. So it's money just as foolishly spent when using that argument.

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.

Kassian was done here. Getting any player back that actually puts in an honest effort night in and night is a win as far as I'm concerned.

I've covered Santo twice now. Just to be clear: I would have let him walk too. I wouldn't have given him the multi-year deal he wanted. He was what he was, while Vey has the potential to be much more. Vey was acquired to replace Santo's spot. santo gambled on his value and lost only getting a one year deal on the open market. Too late to re-sign here he had already been replaced. His gamble, his loss. /story

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.

Your post is just starting to get whiny at this point and sounding far to much like an EA player.

Look at Henrik, Kessler, Matthias, Richards, and Bonino's faceoff percentage for their rookie seasons. Vey was right in the ballpark. You, like many others here simply have your sights set too high and give up far too quickly. Btw, Vey also played on the 1st pk unit in the ahl and junior. He's no where near as bad as most have decided. It was his rookie season and it was a decent one. Not great, not awful. Patience grasshopper.

You're mad Vey is unlikely to become an elite player? Is that honestly your expectation of 2nd round picks? Most 2nd rounders don't even make the nhl never mind the very small percentage that turn out to be an elite player. Was Santo going to be an elite player? Of course not. Would Santo put us over the top to win the cup? Nope. So we put a younger player who may well become more in his place. That's a good thing if you're rebuilding. No GM in the league expects every player acquired to become an elite player. A stupid expectation that will lead you many disappointments. All he needs to be is an nhl quality player. From there we'll see what he becomes. Whether he's a long term core player or a trade piece down the road he's an asset. And that's all draft picks are - assets.

From the beginning Linden and Benning have said the same things. Remain competitive (meaning there will be veterans), get younger (whether drafting or trading for them), and build a team of players that play the right way (why Kassian is out and Prust is in). The moves they have made sense and are in line with that game plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The more the better obviously but as long as they are playing in games that matter.....elimination games. So at minimum a playoff race to get the benefit they want.

They have to weigh the benefit of competitiveness vs. asset acquisition at the trade deadline. I myself, would like to see a free agent or two traded as rentals for assets. I think that trading up for that top 5 pick is probably more reliable than finishing badly. No player who they want to keep is going to not give his best effort on purpose.

For example, they could have moved Matthias at the deadline last year but chose to hang on to him. First it gave them a better chance at finishing higher and second (more importantly) they saw Matthias disappear down the stretch. They saw that he was unable to raise his game when the games mattered so they let him go to free agency rather than pay big money for a guy who didn't have the right stuff.

The question is, do they make such decisions on a case by case basis or is it a pattern that they will follow next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I agree that the team isn't bad enough to pick top 5. Past history shows that teams need multiple top 5 picks plus good drafting in later positions to win a cup. Chi and LA have been the cup winners the past 4 years. Toews and Kane were top 5 picks, Doughty and Brayden Schenn (traded for Mike Richards) were top 5 picks... they're supplemented by players taken later in the draft like Kopitar, Quick, Keith and Seabrook.

Right now the Canucks have a Horvat, Virtanen and Boeser as their top draft picks... below that is a crapshoot at best. Even if these guys had the best mentorship and played competitive playoff games, I don't see how they will beat Chicago or LA.

Realistically top 5 picks are critical to winning the cup as past history shows. Crosby was mentored by Lemieux and only had one cup to show for it. Couture and Pavelski are mentored by Thorton and Marleau and SJ are still choke artists.

I just think realistic expectations are that the Canucks will not win a cup without top 5 picks.. even getting to the conference finals seems to be a stretch. However, I am a fan of the rebuild on the fly but unless Benning is a world class drafter or changes the rebuilding plan, I know better than to expect a cup and I'm ok with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Chara was only traded once in his career. Him, muckalt and Spezza for yashin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

Seriously? Someone is only worth what another is willing to pay him period? So you think that a persons ability to negotiate doesn't play a factor at all? I'm afraid that it doesn't work that way with everything in the world....maybe when your buying a car or something similar.

From what you said, there are no losers or winners in negotiations because in the end... the player is only worth what another team paid for him. ummm....ok.

In the real world, there's multiple factors involved in negotiating at higher levels. If you are saying that a 5 year old could have gotten the same deals that benning did than I would agree with you. Although I think that benning would fair better than a 5 year old....slightly.

Yes. How hard is that to understand? A player's value is what another team will pay for him just like a house is only valued at what another person will pay for it. You can ask for more, you can be assessed at a higher price, but that doesn't make the deal go through. The only number that matters is what is offered for said player or using your example a house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1: Trading 2nd round pick for Sven Baertschi. I know he's yet to play with the big club, but I believe his speed and scoring ability play well for the top six. He fits how Vancouver has played for the last handful of seasons. I think he's a great fit. He'll be playing on the first or second PP which also will help him further his ability to really reach his high 1st round pick status.

#2: Trading Kevin Bieska: I am a fan of his and have appreciated his time as a Canuck staple in the top 4. However, his nagging injuries have popped up regularly and the team needs to go in a different direction. While trading Clendening was questionable, the defense is really the core group that needs key focus on integrating youth. Whether that's Subban, Tryamkin or one of several others. Benning realizes that the right mix makes the team better in the long haul.

#3: Trading for Brandon Sutter: Most fan bases feel that the Canucks overpaid both in terms of assets and the contract, however, he's a better fit than Bonino going further. He's better in terms of speed, two way ability and his offense is underutilized and never really used in any sense in Pittsburgh. Getting him locked up entering his 27-28 season puts him right in the wheelhouse. As long as there is chemistry, I can see him being a huge steal.

#4: Drafting Horvat, Virtanen and Boeser: Nothing sexy in name, but with their skill sets and size (on the latter) they have the ability to further push forward the top six possibilities heading into the 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons in the short and long term. With the contracts of: Burrows, Vrbata coming up in the next two seasons furthering the ability to provide younger stabilizing character players to the team is important. Horvat did nothing but come in and successfully take over the number three hole last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

Seriously, how old are you? Better yet... when did you decide that education wasn't part of your future?

I obviously upset you in another thread and now you're just trying to troll everything I write??? haha I love it! :)

Go for it Scooter! Happy trolling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Worst post of the year.

I love Santorelli, and I watched him as a rook in Florida. But if you don't know the difference between him and Vey, you haven't got a clue.

 

BAHAHA You really are trolling aren't you... :)

As for the worst post of the year awards....

You prefer an unproven smallish center who isn't very fast over Santorelli, who plays harder and could skate circles around Vey? Santorelli who knew our system, wouldn't cost too much and wanted to play here?

Essentially, you believe that the Canucks are better off with a smallish, unproven Vey minus our 2nd round pick than we were with Santorelli PLUS keeping our second round pick? Yeah... your credibility shows itself.

Another runner-up post of yours...your reply to another poster on this thread,

"Does capspace help you win games? When I look at those teams, I see garbage players up and down the lineup, and I am thankful that our ownership isn't cheap."

Cap space isn't tangible so it doesn't play a part in actual play....but it is hugely relevant in terms of players a team can acquire or keep. So, overall, a smart GM MUST use the capspace to help his team ice the best players available which equates to winning games.

What about the GM who is wasting that capspace on his bottom 6 forwards, not to mention Sbisa? Just because a team has capspace, it doesn't mean you max it out wherever possible...

Yeah... "I" haven't got a clue haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the worst post of the year awards....

You prefer an unproven smallish center who isn't very fast over Santorelli, who plays harder and could skate circles around Vey? Santorelli who knew our system, wouldn't cost too much and wanted to play here?

Essentially, you believe that the Canucks are better off with a smallish, unproven Vey minus our 2nd round pick than we were with Santorelli PLUS keeping our second round pick? Yeah... your credibility shows itself.

Another runner-up post of yours...your reply to another poster on this thread,

"Does capspace help you win games? When I look at those teams, I see garbage players up and down the lineup, and I am thankful that our ownership isn't cheap."

Cap space isn't tangible so it doesn't play a part in actual play....but it is hugely relevant in terms of players a team can acquire or keep. So, overall, a smart GM MUST use the capspace to help his team ice the best players available which equates to winning games.

What about the GM who is wasting that capspace on his bottom 6 forwards, not to mention Sbisa? Just because a team has capspace, it doesn't mean you max it out wherever possible...

Yeah... "I" haven't got a clue haha

You keep ignoring the fact that Santorelli was asking for a multi-year deal here after a season where he started begging for a job, played fairly well, and finished missing almost half the season with an injury. Would you honestly have offered him a multi-year deal knowing you're going into a rebuild? The guy you are so high on is so in demand he finally got signed to yet another one year deal YESTERDAY.

But let's take a look at the two for last season:

Vey 23 (rookie) - 93 nhl gp

14/15 Vancouver 75 gp

24 pts, 42.8% fo

Santorelli 29 (veteran) - 336 nhl gp

14/15 gp Toronto/Nashville 79 gp

33 pts, 46.4% fo Tor, 45.0% fo Nas

Three questions for you:

1 - Who do you honestly believe has the greater chance to become more than they currently are Vey or Santorelli?

2 - Which option is actually better for a team rebuilding a rookie or a so-so veteran that just spent half the season injured?

3 - Is it better to keep that 2nd rounder knowing there's a 70+% chance the player will never pan out and if he does it will be 3 or 4 years before he's nhl ready? Or is it better to trade that pick for a player that has already gone through those years of development and is ready to step into an nhl spot thus speeding up the process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep ignoring the fact that Santorelli was asking for a multi-year deal here after a season where he started begging for a job, played fairly well, and finished missing almost half the season with an injury. Would you honestly have offered him a multi-year deal knowing you're going into a rebuild? The guy you are so high on is so in demand he finally got signed to yet another one year deal YESTERDAY.

But let's take a look at the two for last season:

Vey 23 (rookie) - 93 nhl gp

14/15 Vancouver 75 gp

24 pts, 42.8% fo

Santorelli 29 (veteran) - 336 nhl gp

14/15 gp Toronto/Nashville 79 gp

33 pts, 46.4% fo Tor, 45.0% fo Nas

Three questions for you:

1 - Who do you honestly believe has the greater chance to become more than they currently are Vey or Santorelli?

2 - Which option is actually better for a team rebuilding a rookie or a so-so veteran that just spent half the season injured?

3 - Is it better to keep that 2nd rounder knowing there's a 70+% chance the player will never pan out and if he does it will be 3 or 4 years before he's nhl ready? Or is it better to trade that pick for a player that has already gone through those years of development and is ready to step into an nhl spot thus speeding up the process?

You keep ignoring the fact that Santorelli was asking for a multi-year deal here after a season where he started begging for a job, played fairly well, and finished missing almost half the season with an injury. Would you honestly have offered him a multi-year deal knowing you're going into a rebuild? The guy you are so high on is so in demand he finally got signed to yet another one year deal YESTERDAY.

But let's take a look at the two for last season:

Vey 23 (rookie) - 93 nhl gp

14/15 Vancouver 75 gp

24 pts, 42.8% fo

Santorelli 29 (veteran) - 336 nhl gp

14/15 gp Toronto/Nashville 79 gp

33 pts, 46.4% fo Tor, 45.0% fo Nas

Three questions for you:

1 - Who do you honestly believe has the greater chance to become more than they currently are Vey or Santorelli?

2 - Which option is actually better for a team rebuilding a rookie or a so-so veteran that just spent half the season injured?

3 - Is it better to keep that 2nd rounder knowing there's a 70+% chance the player will never pan out and if he does it will be 3 or 4 years before he's nhl ready? Or is it better to trade that pick for a player that has already gone through those years of development and is ready to step into an nhl spot thus speeding up the process?

I'll take a stab at that,

1. I view both players as similar, Vey very likely turns into a Santorelli type player. At best maybe he turns into a Bonino type player, good enough to play in the league and be traded twice in two years for better players. I'd call it a pick.

2. Neither, Vey is younger and brings the age of the Canucks down, but with limited potential he brings little more to the Canucks than the appearance of getting younger. Jeremy Welsh, Zack Dalpe, Scheoder, Santorelli , Acton... there are lots of players who can plug holes but few ever impress.

3. If you value 2nds so lowly, why not just wave Bieksa and Lack? Why would Benning state he wanted to trade to get those picks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First I never specified YOU in my post. My words were "common opinion" and "many on this board".

Garrison was our leading point getter among d-men with 33 points and he was 29 when traded. Not so sure he was worth much more than a second though. I certainly wouldn't have traded a first for him. Decent offensively but doesn't play a physical game at all with his size. Possibly could have gotten a little more had we had the freedom to shop him. But with an ntc comes restrictions. I was mildly disappointed with the return but also understand that ntc's can cause that. We could have gotten more for Kessler had we been able to trade him any place as well.

Bieksa was no longer a top four d-man as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps a poor mans top four, but a very good bottom pair d-man. Again limited by a ntc I figure a second was a reasonable return. Would have preferred it to be this year but again those pesky ntc's tend to tie your hands somewhat.

So you're basing your opinion of Miller based on 6 playoff games? Personally I think St Louis' problems ran deeper. The first thrid of the year they were among the top teams. They went looking for a goalie at the deadline because neither of theirs were doing very well. Miller had put up an excellent S% (.923) that year behind a poor Buffalo team. Yet somehow Miller "declined" on the trip to St Louis. I believe it was more of a team or system issue than their goaltending.

Another point I made repeatedly through this season is Miller has always been a goalie that comes out to cut angels. That's not our system. Here the goalie is expected to stay in the paint. Anytime you change the way a goalie plays you'll have a drop during the learning curve. So I'm not entirely sold there been the huge decline you're describing.

Of course those goalies earned their contracts. They are elite level goalies with elite level contracts. Miller's is a good goalie with a a "good goalie" contract. Thus I don't consider his deal anything close to "massive". That's just gross exaggeration.

Santo wasn't going to be part of our future. re-signing him would have been a stop gap. Nothing more. Again I wouldn't have offered him a multi-year deal. Let him walk. Vey could be here for the next decade. That's the better long term option.

Miller is also a stop gap. I won't be surprised if Lack ends up a career backup. I believe Markstrom (who is younger than Lack) is the better option. I believed all along Lack would be the one to be moved as it made the most sense to me.

  • There's a risk going with two goalies without that starter experience.
  • Lack is a ufa next summer. How much to re-sign him as our starter?
  • Should Markstrom prove to be the better goalie over the next 2 seasons how do you move a backup with a starters salary?
  • The team seemed to play better offensively with Miller in net. They took more risks. To me that was a sign they had more confidence in Miller than Lack.
And no, no GM would have got Miller for less. Unless it was a contender like LA where his wife was working.

Miller was brought in as a stop gap because Lack just wasn't very good after Lou was moved. It made sense. I keep seeing the argument that we're not a contender so Millers money could have been better spent on a d-man. What real difference does that make? A ufa d-man will be past his prime by the time this team is a contender as well. So it's money just as foolishly spent when using that argument.

Kassian was done here. Getting any player back that actually puts in an honest effort night in and night is a win as far as I'm concerned.

I've covered Santo twice now. Just to be clear: I would have let him walk too. I wouldn't have given him the multi-year deal he wanted. He was what he was, while Vey has the potential to be much more. Vey was acquired to replace Santo's spot. santo gambled on his value and lost only getting a one year deal on the open market. Too late to re-sign here he had already been replaced. His gamble, his loss. /story

Your post is just starting to get whiny at this point and sounding far to much like an EA player.

Look at Henrik, Kessler, Matthias, Richards, and Bonino's faceoff percentage for their rookie seasons. Vey was right in the ballpark. You, like many others here simply have your sights set too high and give up far too quickly. Btw, Vey also played on the 1st pk unit in the ahl and junior. He's no where near as bad as most have decided. It was his rookie season and it was a decent one. Not great, not awful. Patience grasshopper.

You're mad Vey is unlikely to become an elite player? Is that honestly your expectation of 2nd round picks? Most 2nd rounders don't even make the nhl never mind the very small percentage that turn out to be an elite player. Was Santo going to be an elite player? Of course not. Would Santo put us over the top to win the cup? Nope. So we put a younger player who may well become more in his place. That's a good thing if you're rebuilding. No GM in the league expects every player acquired to become an elite player. A stupid expectation that will lead you many disappointments. All he needs to be is an nhl quality player. From there we'll see what he becomes. Whether he's a long term core player or a trade piece down the road he's an asset. And that's all draft picks are - assets.

From the beginning Linden and Benning have said the same things. Remain competitive (meaning there will be veterans), get younger (whether drafting or trading for them), and build a team of players that play the right way (why Kassian is out and Prust is in). The moves they have made sense and are in line with that game plan.

 

If the inclination wasn't directed towards me than why place it in a response to me? Common sense.

Is this team better off with Garrison at a low cap or Sbisa at a high cap? Yes a NTC was an issue, but that goes with the territory when a smart GM wants to sign a player for a cheaper contract. As opposed to our GM who provides NTC's and doesn't get a discount from the player... And as we sit now, we have just as many NTC's as we did during MG's tenure here. Those pesky NTCs that benning loves to hand out....

I agree with you that the Garrison trade was done hastily and benning should have gotten more from the trade....big question is, what was the rush? Why did he? If you have an asset and aren't forced to trade him immediately... why get a lessor deal?

Bieksa....they should have tried to move him earlier when he had more value. But, I still think the return was underwhelming.

My opinion on Miller is based on his history playing in the NHL.... if it's only been 6 games than so be it. That just shows he wasn't good enough to push his team into contention. You said, "Yet, somehow Miller "declined" on his trip to St. Louis. I believe it was more of a team or a system issue than their goaltending."

I believe Miller sh!t the bed and he isn't a Playoff goalie AND, as you mentioned above, he doesn't have the experience in the postseason to help a team make a run for the Cup. Regardless, after his abysmal Playoff run....do you think that the GM's or Miller's agent holds all the cards? Who has leverage in negotiating a deal? Especially since no other GM's were in the hunt for Miller.... This was a bad deal period. Not the worst goalie...I'd be ok if Miller was signed to a reasonable contract and wouldn't force us to trade Lack.

It doesn't matter what you repeatedly said about how good Miller was before.... I repeatedly said that Lack was great until Torts kept beating him down and not giving a rookie a single day to rest. Both are just an opinion and doesn't hold much weight.

The fact is, there were other good goalies on the market for much cheaper and this team didn't need to spend 6 million of its cap space on goaltending. Why pay that much for, like you said, an unproven Playoff goalie who just recently came off of a horrid Playoff stint with St. Louis? And I'm not the one saying that Miller is declining... follow the official stats. I'm just repeating what they say.

You do understand that there is leverage when it comes to negotiations right? If a player performs poorly just before his contract negotiations begin, he's not gonna get as much as he wants. And, there were no other GM's in discussions with Miller... so, YES! He could have, he SHOULD have been signed for much less.... considering his recent play with St. Louis, his age, his declining performance and the NTC he got, Miller's contract is considered "Massive". Just the NTC alone should have allowed for some discount....that's why GMMG used the NTC.... benning uses it as a sweetener to get a deal done. To say it Miller's contract was a "gross exaggeration" is completely false.

ANY GM could have signed Miller for less...Miller had absolutely ZERO leverage.

Santo signing here would have been ideal as opposed to Vey. At the time, Vey was still unproven, he was small (still is), not very fast, and didn't play with grit.... I would have taken Santorelli alone just because it wouldn't have cost us a 2nd round pick. Not to mention that Santorelli could have been had for cheap, he is proven and 2 years would've been fine since that's seems to be benning's plan for players. Had benning made this "plan" earlier (when he started) than he would have realized that 2 years for Santo would fit perfectly now.

Santo being a stop gap is perfect! Look....we would have had an extra 2nd round pick in the draft without having to trade for Vey AND we could have traded Santo for 3rd round pick at the deadline. Vey has no future with the Canucks. I don't mind him as a player if he's on the wing....but he was not big enough to center our 2nd or 3rd line, he can't take a faceoff, and he isn't reliable defensively. At the time of the trade, Vey was not traded for to play the wing....he was supposed to play at center. Obviously things didn't work out with him at center and Vey's future with us will be short because we had (before the trade for Vey) plenty of solid C prospects that will easily replace Vey.

If you really think that Vey has a 10 year future with us than you're dreaming.... he will easily be replaced. This was a waste of a 2nd round pick....just like trading for Clendening. Another asset we traded for that benning dumped in another trade deal.

We've argued about Lack and Miller in another thread.... yes, you believe this and you believe that. Fine, I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE. WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE.

However, a goaltender at Miller's age will only have more injuries like he did for 2 months last season... this alone worries me the most. If Miller gets injured, we only have Markstrom and he hasn't faired so well playing in the NHL thus far. We put Markstrom in the #1 role too early and we will completely destroy his fragile confidence in the NHL... which could happen with an aging and injury prone goaltender. You mentioned Santorelli being injured so he was a risk to sign...what about Miller?

A combination of an aging goalie who will get injured paired with a young goalie who's been awful in his NHL starts with two different teams scares me a lot more than a young goalie in his prime paired with Markstrom. Your opinion is that Lack is a career backup and I, AGAIN, DISAGREE, but these are just our opinions. I don't think you can disagree that an aging goalie is more prone to injury than a younger goalie in his prime!

All your points are excuses for benning and you completely ignore facts or relevant factors and argue with "I believe..." or "I repeatedly said..."

- are the Canucks better off with a 2nd round pick plus Santorelli or better off trading for Vey and losing that pick? I should add the 3rd round pick we could have got for Santorelli in a trade at the deadline. So, we could have had a 2nd and 3rd round pick had we signed Santorelli....are we better with the picks?

- could the Canucks have gotten more for Garrison in a trade had benning shopped around a bit? Of course.

- you complain about the "pesky" NTC making it hard for benning...but you don't complain about benning giving away the same "pesky" NTC minus the advantage of having that player sign for less?

- you believe that Miller's poor performance was the fault of his team and the organization, but it's Kass' fault that he didn't change his game to fit the Canucks style?

- you also make excuses for Miller because he had to learn a new system...it's not poor MIller's fault ever is it? Sure, Lack gets thrown in with the wolves and he doesn't get a day of rest and his stats decline since the extra burden was put on his shoulders, but poor Miller had to learn a new system? Miller's a vet..and you harp on Lack more?

- Santo wasn't going to be part of the future, but the smallish, no faceoff ability, little experienced Vey will? That's your excuse to give away a high 2nd round pick? That's our better long term option? So how's Vey looking now as our center option? I guess you were wrong here too.

- You "believe" Lack is a career backup and Markstrom is younger...so Markstrom has a better chance to be a #1? Is this the same Markstrom who performed so well with Florida or the Canucks? Great goalie for Utica, but is still fragile for the NHL.... and you think this is a low risk move? hehe btw, I believe Lack will be a #1...I guess this negates your belief of him being a backup. However, Lack's stats prove otherwise.

- Your perception of the how the team played in front of Miller is quite amusing! The team had more faith in Miller so they played better offensively? That's really funny...I saw a team that was forced to put up more goals and take more chances because their goaltender couldn't keep the opponents from scoring.

- Santo's loss only and we didn't lose? Umm... where's our 2nd round pick? How was Vey in replacement of Santos? How's Vey looking as a long term solution at C with the Canucks considering Horvat, Sutter (now), Cassels, McCann, etc. Signing Santos for free would have given us the opportunity to gain another pick in the draft if we wanted to trade him at the deadline as well.... Santo's just signed with the Ducks... so he's playing in the NHL again for his "multi-year" equivalent contract. Canucks....lost a 2nd round pick and a possible 3rd in a trade of Santos. Now we have Vey who "might" make it as a 4th line C.... this is not the position that we expected at the time of trade. Santos is still playing so he doesn't lose.... we lost a 2nd round pick and a realistic 3rd round pick had we traded Santo at the deadline.

- Vey is a superstar? You're putting him in the same sentence with the Sedins and Kes?? Are you drunk! Nobody gives a sh!t how Vey performed in the AHL and Junior... we are talking about a complete different ballgame with the NHL. There's enough examples of talented players in the AHL who couldn't cut it in the NHL so please just stop.

- it's funny how you say that we should have patience for Vey and not have any for Kass? umm...did you know that it takes a little longer for PF's and topD men to develop than it does for other players? What's with the double standards here...

- You quote benning in your last paragraph and said his plan was to remain competitive, get younger, and get players that play the right way. Than you include Kass for Prust for the players playing the right way? What about getting younger? Prust for Kass or Miller for Lack?

This seems to be the opposite of getting younger...

I'm seriously baffled how you can't see any errors being made by this new regime... absolutely mind boggling. When you begin your response with "I believe..." or "I said repeatedly..." that doesn't hold any water on CDC.... we all have our own beliefs and we all have repeatedly mentioned one thing or another, but that doesn't make your argument sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You keep ignoring the fact that Santorelli was asking for a multi-year deal here after a season where he started begging for a job, played fairly well, and finished missing almost half the season with an injury. Would you honestly have offered him a multi-year deal knowing you're going into a rebuild? The guy you are so high on is so in demand he finally got signed to yet another one year deal YESTERDAY.

But let's take a look at the two for last season:

Vey 23 (rookie) - 93 nhl gp

14/15 Vancouver 75 gp

24 pts, 42.8% fo

Santorelli 29 (veteran) - 336 nhl gp

14/15 gp Toronto/Nashville 79 gp

33 pts, 46.4% fo Tor, 45.0% fo Nas

Three questions for you:

1 - Who do you honestly believe has the greater chance to become more than they currently are Vey or Santorelli?

2 - Which option is actually better for a team rebuilding a rookie or a so-so veteran that just spent half the season injured?

3 - Is it better to keep that 2nd rounder knowing there's a 70+% chance the player will never pan out and if he does it will be 3 or 4 years before he's nhl ready? Or is it better to trade that pick for a player that has already gone through those years of development and is ready to step into an nhl spot thus speeding up the process?

 

Imm already made some good points so I'll just add to his...

Let's start with calling a spade a spade.... Santorelli wanted a 2 year deal. You really think he was looking for something like a 5 year deal? Let's call it what it is instead of trying to amplify the terms with suggestive words. In fact, had benning made a plan initially, he would have understood that a 2 year deal would have fit in perfectly with the decisions he made afterwards. Santorelli's contract would be up after this season...just like he's been doing with everyone else. Perfect fit.

I'm not gonna bother checking the stats, but that doesn't reveal everything that these players bring to the ice. Physical play, speed, face off abilities, etc....and Santorelli put up more points so, ABSOLUTELY, Santorelli would have been a better option for the Canucks. Not to mention that he wasn't "gifted" ice time like Vey and how many of Vey's points were due to the PP that he didn't deserve to play on? If Vey wasn't waiver eligible he would have been sent down to the minors....that's another issue with the trade! When we trade for these type of players and they're not ready or capable....were forced to keep playing them or lose them if we send them down. Have you considered this risk? Santorelli is proven and doesn't cost a draft pick, Vey is unproven and we are forced to play him regardless or lose him.

Your 3 questions:

1) Imm made a good point, but I'll add that both of these players don't have a high ceiling and wouldn't last long term with the Canucks. So their future is irrelevant. Vey doesn't have the size, grit, faceoff abilities, defensive abilities to stay on this team and compete against teams in our division (plus we have a plethora of C prospects who have much higher ceilings than Vey). So he is not a long term solution.

What we needed was a short term solution to stop the bleeding and Santorelli was the better band-aid....he plays better defensively, better at faceoffs, scored more, much faster and he plays with more grit than Vey. AND HE WOULDN'T COST US A 2ND ROUND PICK!

Oh...regarding your stats, if Vey wasn't waiver eligible than would he have played as many games as he did? No. So GP for Vey should be taken with a grain of salt....including his points since he was on the first pp unit.

2) Both options aren't good enough for a teams rebuilding. If you expect Vey or Santorelli to be a key part of this organization than your dreaming. The position needed to be filled for a temporary period of 1 or 2 seasons...and for this, Santorelli is the much better option.

It's funny how you keep talking about Santorelli's injuries and you completely ignore Miller's? If injuries are so important to you, do you think this organization made a smart move in keeping Miller over Lack? Especially since Markstrom MUST be eased into the NHL... if we rush him, we could possibly lose a top prospect because we destroyed his confidence. Double standards again.

3) Imm said it perfectly. But, I just want to point out your double standards once again.

It seems that when we acquire a 2nd round pick in a trade for a top 4 dman or anyone else you think it's fair value. However, when we give away 2nd round picks or any picks, you keep saying that there's only a 30% chance of success or it will take 3 or 4 years to develop him. This argument of yours is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard.... What you are essentially saying is that we don't want any picks beyond the first round because there is a low probability rate? C'mon.

And I'll add something to the above paragraph, everyone talks about how good benning is with draft picks...I'm sure you've said he's "the boss" in some other thread. Well, if he's so good than he should be able to turn those high-risk 2nd and 3rd rounders into quality players. So we should be keeping as many of these high risk 2nd rounders as possible right?

Back to your question, do I think it's better to trade a 2nd round pick for a player that has been through development, but he wasn't good enough to play for his respective team or replace any players on his teams roster? (You painted the scenario favorably for your argument, but I just reworded it to facts). ONLY, if that player has intangibles that aren't accounted for and if the player was being held back in development due to management. Baertch is a player that is worthy of taking a flier with...but this is not the norm and I wouldn't condone it otherwise.

Vey, he's not worth a 2nd round pick. Give me a choice between having a top 4 Dman or Vey....I'll take the Dman or keep the 2nd round pick. Remember, what we got in return for Garrison.... enough said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take a stab at that,

1. I view both players as similar, Vey very likely turns into a Santorelli type player. At best maybe he turns into a Bonino type player, good enough to play in the league and be traded twice in two years for better players. I'd call it a pick.

2. Neither, Vey is younger and brings the age of the Canucks down, but with limited potential he brings little more to the Canucks than the appearance of getting younger. Jeremy Welsh, Zack Dalpe, Scheoder, Santorelli , Acton... there are lots of players who can plug holes but few ever impress.

3. If you value 2nds so lowly, why not just wave Bieksa and Lack? Why would Benning state he wanted to trade to get those picks?

1. Can I borrow that crystal ball of yours? How can anybody truly forecast what a player will become? He could be another Santo but he also could become more. Santorelli at 29 and far more games played is what he is.

2. Like a 2nd you never know until the player gets his chance. Again you're making your own unfounded claims which mean nothing. We don't know what Vey can become.

3. I never said I place low value on 2nd round picks. I'm stating the historical fact (unlike your crystal ball predictions) that the odds are against a 2nd round pick having a significant nhl career. The odds are the odds. That doesn't mean it's impossible to get a decent, good, or even elite player with that pick. A lottery ticket has more value than nothing at all.

The majority of 2nd round picks take years of development before making the nhl. That's why Vey, who had already gone through that development and excelled in the ahl, was a good deal for that 2nd. He has a greater chance of nhl success than using the 2nd and it speeds the development process up to boot. Use the pick and wait four year to maybe get a Vey or maybe get nothing. Or use the pick to get Vey who is ready to step in now. For a team already rebuilding which is the better play: a young player now or roll the dice and wait four years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes. How hard is that to understand? A player's value is what another team will pay for him just like a house is only valued at what another person will pay for it. You can ask for more, you can be assessed at a higher price, but that doesn't make the deal go through. The only number that matters is what is offered for said player or using your example a house.

 

wow. It's amazing how you don't understand that there's many other factors involved with selling a house... just the marketing alone would increase the value. That's one of the reasons that people get more money for their homes when they use a realtor as opposed to selling it on their own.

Your theory only works for smaller deals like buying a car... when we are talking about dealing players in professional sports, there's multiple methods a GM can use to increase value.

As an example, GMMG used his savvy to to increase market value for Hodgson by giving him favorable minutes on the ice...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's start with calling a spade a spade.... Santorelli wanted a 2 year deal.

"Multi year deal" was Lindens words. He never said how many years.

Garrison had the 2nd highest cap hit among our D and was moved for cap space to sign Miller and Vrbata.

Just to be clear: I have no problem with using 2nd round picks. But I'm a realist regarding their odds of becoming anything in the nhl. It's like buying a lottery ticket, i know what the odds are but I still play from time to time. But trading that pick for an already developed player is a better option than rolling the dice on the pick and waiting three or four years to see if you've got a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

Seriously, how old are you? Better yet... when did you decide that education wasn't part of your future?

I obviously upset you in another thread and now you're just trying to troll everything I write??? haha I love it! :)

Go for it Scooter! Happy trolling!

Okay, you insist that the NHL is just like the real estate market, and I make a joke about how absurd your comparison is, and it's totally over your head.

I said this:

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?

Can you wrap your head around my critique here? Take a minute. Read aloud if it helps.

(It's something about a restricted marketplace.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

wow. It's amazing how you don't understand that there's many other factors involved with selling a house... just the marketing alone would increase the value. That's one of the reasons that people get more money for their homes when they use a realtor as opposed to selling it on their own.

Your theory only works for smaller deals like buying a car... when we are talking about dealing players in professional sports, there's multiple methods a GM can use to increase value.

As an example, GMMG used his savvy to to increase market value for Hodgson by giving him favorable minutes on the ice...

You're deliberately ignoring my exact words to misdirect from the original argument you find yourself floundering in. I said "A player's value is what another team will pay for him". That doesn't mean the GM just sits there and whines about how bad a player is or that the GM doesn't negotiate to get the best deal possible. It means that after all factors are considered a player's value is what another GM will pay for him period. How hard is that to understand?

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...