Ben Kuzma: Rebuilding Canucks Want Miller, Won’t Shop Tanev Or Edler

[JamesB]

3 hours ago, Nucktika said:

Strategically thinking...isn't a better asset move to limit uncertainty by acquiring assets that are more likely to play significant roles in the future than draft picks in a weak year. We are talking about a 19 & 21yr old that will likely be part of the long term Canuck future to 18yr draft pick choice this year. Isn't the idea to maximize your return when possible

As for the "weak year" argument, it is clear that the draft is weaker in the top 2 positions than in the past two years -- no McDavid, Eichel, Matthews or Laine. But this draft looks no weaker at, say, 4 on down than most drafts. 

 

But I want to address the argument that Benning picked up two solid players instead of the uncertainty of draft picks. That is true. By picking prospects who are further along, you have a better assessment of their long run potential, and both Goldobin and Dahlen look like they will be legitimate NHL players. But they are not likely to become franchise players. No team will trade away a guy who looks like a potential franchise player for a rental.

 

With a draft pick you might get a bust. However, you might also get a franchise player. So by getting older prospects Benning has reduced variance but not necessarily increased the expected return. He is less likely to get a bust but also less likely to get a franchise player.

 

With good players like we expect Dahlen and Goldobin to be, you can build a middle of road playoff contender. But to get to the Cup finals you need to have a couple of franchise players. Pretty much every Cup finalist in the past decade fits that model. I don't see any likely franchise type players in the Canuck pipeline. I think the Canucks should be acquiring as many first and second and third round picks as possible and hope they can draft a franchise player or two. It is nearly impossible to get players of that level any other way.

 

But Benning has shown a preference for choosing the "safer" option. One of the arguments for taking Virtanen was that with his speed and strength and physical play, he was pretty much "guaranteed" to be at least a good third liner (although that now looks optimistic). Nylander and Ehlers were perceived as higher variance -- guys who could be stars but if things did not pan out would not be able to play in the bottom six and might never be solid NHL players. 

 

3 hours ago, canucksnihilist said:

Yup... sad day..  JB and linden won't last... this market wants a rebuild and will buy tickets to see it.   But not a stale old core again...

As I indicated before, I get a different vibe from Linden than from Benning. I think Linden wants the full rebuild while Benning keeps trying to pull back. But I agree that Benning's comments were disappointing.

 

3 hours ago, Sweathog said:

I don't agree with your assessment. With Benning moving roughly 80% of the roster the last 3 years indicates that he's been well aware of the need to rebuild. Gudbranson and Miller were never "win now" moves. Miller was brought on to provide some stability (and a veteran presence) in net while this team gets younger. Guddy was acquired to bring solid play and physicality, with the expectation of peaking when the Canucks are contenders again, around 5 years from now. Eriksson and Vrbata I see as more business moves, 2 offensive players to generate excitement with the intention of boosting season ticket sales.

 

...

 

Jim obviously wants to rebuild, but wants to show that he's not desperate to move vets, and that is where this article comes in. Your statement that JB would love to move picks doesn't make sense, it's completely at odds with what he's been doing.

The Canucks have had a lot of turnover in the last 3 years. But turnover is not the same thing as rebuilding. Most of the guys who have left just moved on as UFAs or into retirement or were not qualified or not re-signed. And many of the new players are veterans. Rebuilding usually includes actively exchanging older players for younger players. But the Canucks did very little of that until acquiring Dahlen and Goldobin.

 

I don't see how "providing stability" differs from "win now". Or let's put it this way, by "stability" i think Benning means stable good performance which translates into winning more than you otherwise would. If all he wanted was a veteran who was emotionally calm, he did not need to pay 6 million a year.

 

The argument that Guddy was a good long run acquisition might be what Benning believed but it does not make sense to me. When he was acquired he had only two years left as an RFA. To keep him longer Benning will need to pay him at a UFA level and that is not much  better than just going into the market to get a UFA and has the advantage of not giving up a high potential prospect and a second round pick.  

 

As for Eriksson and Vrbata "generating excitement" to boost ticket sales, how well did that work out?

 

And it looks to me like trading away picks has been a big part of the Benning strategy. That has been discussed at length so I won't provide the full list, but he has traded away a lot of draft picks. However, I think Linden has probably vetoed further such trades.

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, Hortankin said:

We still have his rights. He will return. And if he doesn't I may become depressed

I read he signed a 3 year KHL deal. When that expires he'd be a UFA here.

[Hortankin]

Just now, Baggins said:

I read he signed a 3 year KHL deal. When that expires he'd be a UFA here.

How so? Don't we own his rights for 7 years or until he hits 27?

[Baggins]

3 minutes ago, Hortankin said:

How so? Don't we own his rights for 7 years or until he hits 27?

Qualified but unsigned rfa's become ufa's after 2 years.

[mll]

47 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Qualified but unsigned rfa's become ufa's after 2 years.

Rodin didn't.  He went unsigned for three seasons.  He was in the SHL from 2013 to 2016 and his rights still belonged to the Canucks when he signed last March for this season.

[Sweathog]

42 minutes ago, JamesB said:

As for the "weak year" argument, it is clear that the draft is weaker in the top 2 positions than in the past two years -- no McDavid, Eichel, Matthews or Laine. But this draft looks no weaker at, say, 4 on down than most drafts. 

 

But I want to address the argument that Benning picked up two solid players instead of the uncertainty of draft picks. That is true. By picking prospects who are further along, you have a better assessment of their long run potential, and both Goldobin and Dahlen look like they will be legitimate NHL players. But they are not likely to become franchise players. No team will trade away a guy who looks like a potential franchise player for a rental.

 

With a draft pick you might get a bust. However, you might also get a franchise player. So by getting older prospects Benning has reduced variance but not necessarily increased the expected return. He is less likely to get a bust but also less likely to get a franchise player.

 

With good players like we expect Dahlen and Goldobin to be, you can build a middle of road playoff contender. But to get to the Cup finals you need to have a couple of franchise players. Pretty much every Cup finalist in the past decade fits that model. I don't see any likely franchise type players in the Canuck pipeline. I think the Canucks should be acquiring as many first and second and third round picks as possible and hope they can draft a franchise player or two. It is nearly impossible to get players of that level any other way.

 

But Benning has shown a preference for choosing the "safer" option. One of the arguments for taking Virtanen was that with his speed and strength and physical play, he was pretty much "guaranteed" to be at least a good third liner (although that now looks optimistic). Nylander and Ehlers were perceived as higher variance -- guys who could be stars but if things did not pan out would not be able to play in the bottom six and might never be solid NHL players. 

 

As I indicated before, I get a different vibe from Linden than from Benning. I think Linden wants the full rebuild while Benning keeps trying to pull back. But I agree that Benning's comments were disappointing.

 

The Canucks have had a lot of turnover in the last 3 years. But turnover is not the same thing as rebuilding. Most of the guys who have left just moved on as UFAs or into retirement or were not qualified or not re-signed. And many of the new players are veterans. Rebuilding usually includes actively exchanging older players for younger players. But the Canucks did very little of that until acquiring Dahlen and Goldobin.

 

I don't see how "providing stability" differs from "win now". Or let's put it this way, by "stability" i think Benning means stable good performance which translates into winning more than you otherwise would. If all he wanted was a veteran who was emotionally calm, he did not need to pay 6 million a year.

 

The argument that Guddy was a good long run acquisition might be what Benning believed but it does not make sense to me. When he was acquired he had only two years left as an RFA. To keep him longer Benning will need to pay him at a UFA level and that is not much  better than just going into the market to get a UFA and has the advantage of not giving up a high potential prospect and a second round pick.  

 

As for Eriksson and Vrbata "generating excitement" to boost ticket sales, how well did that work out?

 

And it looks to me like trading away picks has been a big part of the Benning strategy. That has been discussed at length so I won't provide the full list, but he has traded away a lot of draft picks. However, I think Linden has probably vetoed further such trades.

Quite a few players from our core were moved for young players and/or picks.  Bieksa, Garrison, Lack, Kesler, Burrows, and Hansen were all moved for those. That's a pretty significant indication of a GM making moves with an eye for the future. It might not be a scorched earth rebuild but it's a rebuild all the same.

 

"Stability" is not exactly the same as "win now." Miller covered up a lot of our young defensemen's mistakes, therefore allowing them to make those mistakes and without shattering their confidence. This "stability" allows them to develop without getting overwhelmed.

 

Gudbranson's contract status I don't think makes much difference to Benning. IMO Benning sees a character guy who can play a lot of minutes and who plays with heart. He sticks up for teammates and clears the crease, one of the few heavys that can play the game. He'll show his true value in a few years when we're back in the playoffs, we need guys like him to succeed. Unless he gets a can't miss offer, I think he makes every effort to sign him long-term.

 

Eriksson and Vrbata didn't work out from a sales perspective, but they're running a business so they had to try.

 

Benning did trade a couple of picks but those moves made sense IMO. Vey didn't work out, but having him on the roster enabled them to shelter Horvat's minutes and not risk ruining his development. There was also the chance they could catch lightening in a bottle but unfortunately that didn't work out. Bear went for a 2nd but is a former 1st rounder so that looks like a win for JB. Granlund trade is an absolute steal (though he didn't trade a pick for him).

 

I don't think Linden was vetoing anything, I think this was the plan from the beginning. They utilized some assets to shape the foundation and structure of our future team. Now they'll be looking for elite or high quality offensive youngsters. This is definitely not the plan of a management group wanting to win now.

 

 

 

 

[Rush17]

2 hours ago, JamesB said:

As for the "weak year" argument, it is clear that the draft is weaker in the top 2 positions than in the past two years -- no McDavid, Eichel, Matthews or Laine. But this draft looks no weaker at, say, 4 on down than most drafts. 

 

But I want to address the argument that Benning picked up two solid players instead of the uncertainty of draft picks. That is true. By picking prospects who are further along, you have a better assessment of their long run potential, and both Goldobin and Dahlen look like they will be legitimate NHL players. But they are not likely to become franchise players. No team will trade away a guy who looks like a potential franchise player for a rental.

 

With a draft pick you might get a bust. However, you might also get a franchise player. So by getting older prospects Benning has reduced variance but not necessarily increased the expected return. He is less likely to get a bust but also less likely to get a franchise player.

 

With good players like we expect Dahlen and Goldobin to be, you can build a middle of road playoff contender. But to get to the Cup finals you need to have a couple of franchise players. Pretty much every Cup finalist in the past decade fits that model. I don't see any likely franchise type players in the Canuck pipeline. I think the Canucks should be acquiring as many first and second and third round picks as possible and hope they can draft a franchise player or two. It is nearly impossible to get players of that level any other way.

 

But Benning has shown a preference for choosing the "safer" option. One of the arguments for taking Virtanen was that with his speed and strength and physical play, he was pretty much "guaranteed" to be at least a good third liner (although that now looks optimistic). Nylander and Ehlers were perceived as higher variance -- guys who could be stars but if things did not pan out would not be able to play in the bottom six and might never be solid NHL players. 

 

As I indicated before, I get a different vibe from Linden than from Benning. I think Linden wants the full rebuild while Benning keeps trying to pull back. But I agree that Benning's comments were disappointing.

 

The Canucks have had a lot of turnover in the last 3 years. But turnover is not the same thing as rebuilding. Most of the guys who have left just moved on as UFAs or into retirement or were not qualified or not re-signed. And many of the new players are veterans. Rebuilding usually includes actively exchanging older players for younger players. But the Canucks did very little of that until acquiring Dahlen and Goldobin.

 

I don't see how "providing stability" differs from "win now". Or let's put it this way, by "stability" i think Benning means stable good performance which translates into winning more than you otherwise would. If all he wanted was a veteran who was emotionally calm, he did not need to pay 6 million a year.

 

The argument that Guddy was a good long run acquisition might be what Benning believed but it does not make sense to me. When he was acquired he had only two years left as an RFA. To keep him longer Benning will need to pay him at a UFA level and that is not much  better than just going into the market to get a UFA and has the advantage of not giving up a high potential prospect and a second round pick.  

 

As for Eriksson and Vrbata "generating excitement" to boost ticket sales, how well did that work out?

 

And it looks to me like trading away picks has been a big part of the Benning strategy. That has been discussed at length so I won't provide the full list, but he has traded away a lot of draft picks. However, I think Linden has probably vetoed further such trades.

I think Eriksson will surprise a lot of dissatisfied fans.  his contract gets lighter and lighter as it goes on.  I can see him being a positive influence on the next crop of talent that continues to add to the Horvats, Boesers, Juolevis, Huttons, Stechers, and Demkos.

 

I think they want the same veteran presence the pens had back in 09.  once the sedins move on we will still have guddy, one of edler / tanev, Eriksson, and possibly a Dorsett/Sutter who are all over 30.  

 

I don't see both edler and Tanev remaining just as I don't see both Sutter and Dorsett remaining.  I think we got a pretty good situation. add another draft with quality picks this year and suddenly our future isnt so bleak.

[Rush17]

5 hours ago, Dusty_Undies said:

"I think you're going to want to hear this" 

 

 If Miller is truly Jim's guy, then what about trading Markstrom for a 2nd or a package deal. It looks like there will be lots of options for a backup, that could include taking on a bad contract and maybe getting another pick in doing so. In all fairness, I think Jim Benning has some good trade chips going into the draft and although it looks like he's missed the boat at picking a top prospect in the first round he now has a chance to make up for it.

I really hope miller can last a few more seasons. I really like the concept of having Ryan train and help develop Thatcher.   Having the best American goaltender in us history teaching your young American tender can only do great things.   

 

I've been pushing for flipping Markstrom since last fall.  I just am unsure if miller has the ability to remain a top flight tender until Thatcher is ready to share and eventually take over the #1 duties.

 

I love miller's desire to stay in the city.   he loves Vancouver and our fans.  I would like nothing more for him to come back and be a culture carrier.  

 

his approach to goaltending reminds me so much of Thatchers.  I hope he stays in the organization if he ever is beat out of the league.  I have come a long way in my opinions of miller.

[Ossi Vaananen]

Baertschi - Horvat - 

Sedin - Sedin - Granlund

     - Sutter - Eriksson

Dorsett - Gaunce - 

 

Megna (1 way contract, though could waive)

Virtanen, Boeser, Goldobin, Dahlen, Rodin, Boucher, Skille, Cramarossa

 

Still a mess up front, can't really talk about signing FAs or trading valued D-men until we figure out which direction we want to go with our forwards. 

[Alflives]

5 minutes ago, Ossi Vaananen said:

Baertschi - Horvat - 

Sedin - Sedin - Granlund

     - Sutter - Eriksson

Dorsett - Gaunce - 

 

Megna (1 way contract, though could waive)

Virtanen, Boeser, Goldobin, Dahlen, Rodin, Boucher, Skille, Cramarossa

 

Still a mess up front, can't really talk about signing FAs or trading valued D-men until we figure out which direction we want to go with our forwards. 

Ossi, what do you mean by "which direction [...] with our forwards"?  

[Ossi Vaananen]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Ossi, what do you mean by "which direction [...] with our forwards"?  

Well, I mean there's so many proposals around here to acquire a young forward or even prospects for one of our better D in Edler/Tanev. But with the glut of forwards I've just listed do we really need another young forward prospect, while taking a hit on D?

 

In terms of direction, are we going to re-sign guys like Skille/Cramarossa/Chaput, or will we give our prospects a shot in Boeser/Goldobin/Virtanen, conversely, do we believe Boucher/Rodin have more to give? The first and last groups are not on contract, so I think we should figure out which direction we're going in that regard before shopping our valued defensemen for what would essentially just be more forward competition. 

[Stelar]

6 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Scrolled quickly, but not sure I saw this discussed.

 

What happens when the twins' 14 mill cap opens up? Rather we cut them loose, & start fresh with a youthful next wave.

 

******************

Trading Edler & Tanev, you could take back an expiring albatross(perhaps 1 yr left?), if it greatly enhanced returning pieces. That 14 mill could be handy space to help rivals out..for a steep price in picks/prospects.

 

So wondering out loud..might JB have an eye to spring 2018, for timing these deals when he also has max cap space?

prepare yourself for renewed contracts from JB. Maybe year by year or a 2 year.

 

If JB wants to resign Miller, for sure he will want to hang on to the Sedins

[BLU3GR33NBL00D]

11 hours ago, Sweathog said:

I just think this is a negotiation ploy. He's sending a message to the rest of the league that he's not just giving Tanev away.

Bang on.

[Nuxfanabroad]

1 minute ago, Stelar said:

prepare yourself for renewed contracts from JB. Maybe year by year or a 2 year.

 

If JB wants to resign Miller, for sure he will want to hang on to the Sedins

Well, certainly won't lose sleep over such matters..bigger problems in the world!

 

Amount of time I'll spend following the team, will likely be inversely proportional to the cap/$ they commit to vets. Little tired of the same old...

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Stelar said:

prepare yourself for renewed contracts from JB. Maybe year by year or a 2 year.

 

If JB wants to resign Miller, for sure he will want to hang on to the Sedins

In other words: we won't be rebuilding:(

Does Edler get an extension in 2019?

Maybe we could just sign all the oldest players possible?

[ice orca]

Sounds like other GM's were not offering what Benning wanted for Tanev or Edler so he said no deal. The ideal time is the TDL when teams will overpay. Benning said multiple times last year it was almost impossible to make trades as other GM's were not willing to part with high end youth or picks but wanted the Canucks top prospects included in trades.

[Alflives]

15 minutes ago, ice orca said:

Sounds like other GM's were not offering what Benning wanted for Tanev or Edler so he said no deal. The ideal time is the TDL when teams will overpay. Benning said multiple times last year it was almost impossible to make trades as other GM's were not willing to part with high end youth or picks but wanted the Canucks top prospects included in trades.

Dahlen and Goldobin are pretty decent return for what we shipped out.  Trades are out there for Edler and (especially) Tanev.  JB is still in hoping to speed up (cheat) the rebuild mode, so he's keeping those older guys.  

[appleboy]

8 hours ago, J.R. said:

Was worried for a minute until I noticed it was a Kuzma article! 

Told ya !     

What did Benning say about being competitive?  Lets hope Kuz  is wrong but I think he has more inside info then us.

[appleboy]

20 minutes ago, ice orca said:

Sounds like other GM's were not offering what Benning wanted for Tanev or Edler so he said no deal. The ideal time is the TDL when teams will overpay. Benning said multiple times last year it was almost impossible to make trades as other GM's were not willing to part with high end youth or picks but wanted the Canucks top prospects included in trades.

Tanev's NTC kicks in this season.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, appleboy said:

Told ya !     

What did Benning say about being competitive?  Lets hope Kuz  is wrong but I think he has more inside info then us.

It seems like there are many of us who question whether the Canucks are fully committed to a rebuild.