2018-19 Utica Comets Thread

[UticaHockey]

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

Makenna will be back on waivers when one of Philly's goalies is back, then Van gets him back and can send him down.

That goes back to the assumption that McKenna will not be claimed in the first place.  That is not how you manage an organization especially with goaltending.  You do not know with 100% certainty that McKenna will be available in a couple of weeks and can not have only two healthy goaltenders under contract while waiting to see if he gets placed on waivers again.  They will need to made a move sooner than that.

[10pavelbure96]

14 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

I will get crucified by the Benning lovers in this forum again but so be it.  This is another example of a poorly managed organization.

 

Here is an example of a well run organization the Toronto Maple Leafs.  They needed to make room for Nylander on the 23 man roster and worked out a trade for Leivo to the Canucks.  But they were not willing to take a player back that would require waivers so they had Benning place Leipsic on waivers and if he cleared they would have traded Leipsic for him.  When Leipsic was claimed they traded for Carcone instead.  The Canucks assumed the risk of losing an asset to waivers and the Leafs were guaranteed not to lose an asset that they could send to their AHL team.

 

In contrast Vancouver wanted to clear up a roster spot for Demko by moving Nilsson. With Bachman out for the season they had to receive a goalie in return.  But instead of finding a trading partner that had a NHL contracted goalie that is in the AHL and had already cleared waivers they took the route with more risk.  A goalie that needed to clear waivers  before he could be sent down.  The chances of McKenna being claimed may have appeared slim but obviously were not zero.  

 

But this is not just a Utica problem it is a Vancouver problem too that will require an immediate solution.  With Bachman out for the season the Canucks only have two NHL pro goalies under contract.  DiPietro can be an emergency recall but that is not a long term solution if Markstrom or Demko gets hurt and lets not forget Demko already missed two months this season with an injury.  There is no choice now but to trade for a depth goalie that has already cleared waivers and playing in the AHL.  And to do so they have to trade away another asset or draft pick that they should never of had to do.

For all you know, Tom pyatt was sought after. And ottawa was the only partner willing to give up a pick maybe?

We will never know.

 

And I hope I dont offend you but the Utica Comets will always come 2nd the the parent club. You guys will be alright.

[UticaHockey]

4 minutes ago, alfstonker said:

Most of that makes sense. However the key phrase here is "an NHL contracted goalie"

I think we need a goalie with way more than McKenna had so if we do indeed trade an asset for him at least we know we are likely to get someone NOT on the threshold of retirement and who has had more than a round of coffees in the show. 

I do agree that JB does not seem to be tuned into these kind of situations but he has two or three people around him who surely have input into these deals.

They need someone on an expiring contract to get them through this season because Bachman will be back next season and DiPietro will be AHL eligible.  If they want an upgrade over Bachman for next year as the primary depth goalie then someone not on an expiring contract could be an option.

 

And it's not specific to Benning it is the management team that is in place has to do a better job of risk management. 

[SingleThorn]

19 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

I will get crucified by the Benning lovers in this forum again but so be it.  This is another example of a poorly managed organization.

 

Here is an example of a well run organization the Toronto Maple Leafs.  They needed to make room for Nylander on the 23 man roster and worked out a trade for Leivo to the Canucks.  But they were not willing to take a player back that would require waivers so they had Benning place Leipsic on waivers and if he cleared they would have traded Leipsic for him.  When Leipsic was claimed they traded for Carcone instead.  The Canucks assumed the risk of losing an asset to waivers and the Leafs were guaranteed not to lose an asset that they could send to their AHL team.

 

In contrast Vancouver wanted to clear up a roster spot for Demko by moving Nilsson. With Bachman out for the season they had to receive a goalie in return.  But instead of finding a trading partner that had a NHL contracted goalie that is in the AHL and had already cleared waivers they took the route with more risk.  A goalie that needed to clear waivers  before he could be sent down.  The chances of McKenna being claimed may have appeared slim but obviously were not zero.  

 

But this is not just a Utica problem it is a Vancouver problem too that will require an immediate solution.  With Bachman out for the season the Canucks only have two NHL pro goalies under contract.  DiPietro can be an emergency recall but that is not a long term solution if Markstrom or Demko gets hurt and lets not forget Demko already missed two months this season with an injury.  There is no choice now but to trade for a depth goalie that has already cleared waivers and playing in the AHL.  And to do so they have to trade away another asset or draft pick that they should never of had to do.

Are you talking about the same TMLs who lost 2 goalies to waivers ?

[alfstonker]

2 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

They need someone on an expiring contract to get them through this season because Bachman will be back next season and DiPietro will be AHL eligible.  If they want an upgrade over Bachman for next year as the primary depth goalie then someone not on an expiring contract could be an option.

 

And it's not specific to Benning it is the management team that is in place has to do a better job of risk management. 

Yes we fired a guy who was far too anal retentive (Gillis) and now we have Jim who lets it all hang out.  I like JB though because he has that oblivious pragmatic, "I will sign/trade for 3 duds but I will net an absolute gem with the 4th guy kind of approach."

He keeps things interesting and ticking over. The Canucks and Utica will be alright in the end, JB has an Angel on his shoulder.

[alfstonker]

4 minutes ago, SingleThorn said:

Are you talking about the same TMLs who lost 2 goalies to waivers ?

Yes I don't think we have anything to learn from the Leafs.

[UticaHockey]

6 minutes ago, SingleThorn said:

Are you talking about the same TMLs who lost 2 goalies to waivers ?

Yes it probably wasn't wise to have three waiver eligible goalies on the roster to start the season.  But consider this while using the same example of the Leivo trade......

 

Maybe the Canucks didn't have a good trading partner that would have brought back a goalie that already cleared waivers and maybe they liked the Ottawa deal better if they did.  The proper move when considering risk management would be to insist that Ottawa waives McKenna first and then make the trade after he clears.  If he clears we have the exact same trade and if he doesn't the trade never happens.  

[The Beagle had landed]

25 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

I will get crucified by the Benning lovers in this forum again but so be it.  This is another example of a poorly managed organization.

 

Here is an example of a well run organization the Toronto Maple Leafs.  They needed to make room for Nylander on the 23 man roster and worked out a trade for Leivo to the Canucks.  But they were not willing to take a player back that would require waivers so they had Benning place Leipsic on waivers and if he cleared they would have traded Leipsic for him.  When Leipsic was claimed they traded for Carcone instead.  The Canucks assumed the risk of losing an asset to waivers and the Leafs were guaranteed not to lose an asset that they could send to their AHL team.

 

In contrast Vancouver wanted to clear up a roster spot for Demko by moving Nilsson. With Bachman out for the season they had to receive a goalie in return.  But instead of finding a trading partner that had a NHL contracted goalie that is in the AHL and had already cleared waivers they took the route with more risk.  A goalie that needed to clear waivers  before he could be sent down.  The chances of McKenna being claimed may have appeared slim but obviously were not zero.  

 

But this is not just a Utica problem it is a Vancouver problem too that will require an immediate solution.  With Bachman out for the season the Canucks only have two NHL pro goalies under contract.  DiPietro can be an emergency recall but that is not a long term solution if Markstrom or Demko gets hurt and lets not forget Demko already missed two months this season with an injury.  There is no choice now but to trade for a depth goalie that has already cleared waivers and playing in the AHL.  And to do so they have to trade away another asset or draft pick that they should never of had to do.

The whole point of the trade was to promote Demko.  If we waived Nilsson he may have been claimed and we wouldn't have Pyatt or a 6th.  Sure, we lost Archibald, but he's a dime a dozen player and we have better prospects needing that ice time.

 

Its pretty much Demko, Pyatt and a 6th for McKenna, Nilsson and Archibald as opposed to Demko for Nilsson.

 

Maybe Johnson makes a deal.  Maybe Benning uses a 6th for another goalie, but to call us a poorly managed organization is an irrational statement based on minimal evidence.

 

Jim Benning has been providing Utica with great young talent for the past several years as well as serviceable AHL veterans.  Every organization loses assets every now and then when they make roster moves.  It doesn't mean they're poorly managed.

 

I understand your frustration with the goalie siuation in Utica, but the Comets will always be second to the needs of the Canucks.

[SingleThorn]

20 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

Yes it probably wasn't wise to have three waiver eligible goalies on the roster to start the season.  But consider this while using the same example of the Leivo trade......

 

Maybe the Canucks didn't have a good trading partner that would have brought back a goalie that already cleared waivers and maybe they liked the Ottawa deal better if they did.  The proper move when considering risk management would be to insist that Ottawa waives McKenna first and then make the trade after he clears.  If he clears we have the exact same trade and if he doesn't the trade never happens.  

.......or else demand a 6th round pick to make the deal happen ! ( just throwing out 'what ifs' here. I don't disagree with your thoughts ! )

[UticaHockey]

1 minute ago, The Beagle had landed said:

The whole point of the trade was to promote Demko.  If we waived Nilsson he may have been claimed and we wouldn't have Pyatt or a 6th.  Sure, we lost Archibald, but he's a dime a dozen player and we have better prospects needing that ice time.

 

Its pretty much Demko, Pyatt and a 6th for McKenna, Nilsson and Archibald as opposed to Demko for Nilsson.

 

Maybe Johnson makes a deal.  Maybe Benning uses a 6th for another goalie, but to call us a poorly managed organization is an irrational statement based on minimal evidence.

 

Jim Benning has been providing Utica with great young talent for the past several years as well as serviceable AHL veterans.  Every organization loses assets every now and then when they make roster moves.  It doesn't mean they're poorly managed.

 

I understand your frustration with the goalie siuation in Utica, but the Comets will always be second to the needs of the Canucks.

Let me clarify something before too many assumptions are placed on me.  I have no problem with trading Nilsson to open up a spot for Demko.  Thatcher is ready to make the jump to the NHL and has played well enough after returning from injury.  In my eyes he has been playing even better even if the stats don't show it because he is playing behind a very poor defensive team.  Demko is staying up that half second longer and not getting beat up high like he was last year.  He has done everything he needs to do in the AHL and it is the right time to move up.

 

But again read my post above.... "The proper move when considering risk management would be to insist that Ottawa waives McKenna first and then make the trade after he clears.  If he clears we have the exact same trade and if he doesn't the trade never happens."  

 

 

[The Beagle had landed]

22 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

Yes it probably wasn't wise to have three waiver eligible goalies on the roster to start the season.  But consider this while using the same example of the Leivo trade......

 

Maybe the Canucks didn't have a good trading partner that would have brought back a goalie that already cleared waivers and maybe they liked the Ottawa deal better if they did.  The proper move when considering risk management would be to insist that Ottawa waives McKenna first and then make the trade after he clears.  If he clears we have the exact same trade and if he doesn't the trade never happens.  

This could be why the 6th rounder was added to the deal.

[aGENT]

47 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

That goes back to the assumption that McKenna will not be claimed in the first place.  That is not how you manage an organization especially with goaltending.  You do not know with 100% certainty that McKenna will be available in a couple of weeks and can not have only two healthy goaltenders under contract while waiting to see if he gets placed on waivers again.  They will need to made a move sooner than that.

Stolarz is expected back for Phi this weekend'ish. Elliott in about 2 weeks.

[The Beagle had landed]

2 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

But again read my post above.... "The proper move when considering risk management would be to insist that Ottawa waives McKenna first and then make the trade after he clears.  If he clears we have the exact same trade and if he doesn't the trade never happens."  

 

 

Ottawa probably didn't want to risk losing a goalie for nothing.  They added a little more to the deal, probably the 6th, so that the Canucks would accept.  We took the deal knowing the consequences. 

 

Ottawa replaced a backup without having to lose one to waivers, we gained an extra asset in the deal for insurance.

[UticaHockey]

4 minutes ago, The Beagle had landed said:

Ottawa probably didn't want to risk losing a goalie for nothing.  They added a little more to the deal, probably the 6th, so that the Canucks would accept.  We took the deal knowing the consequences. 

 

Ottawa replaced a backup without having to lose one to waivers, we gained an extra asset in the deal for insurance.

But why are you so willing to have your management assume the risk and not Ottawa?  Don't be concerned with the Sen's goaltending depth when Vancouver has only two healthy goalies under NHL contracts. 

[Sean Monahan]

44 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

Yes it probably wasn't wise to have three waiver eligible goalies on the roster to start the season.  But consider this while using the same example of the Leivo trade......

 

Maybe the Canucks didn't have a good trading partner that would have brought back a goalie that already cleared waivers and maybe they liked the Ottawa deal better if they did.  The proper move when considering risk management would be to insist that Ottawa waives McKenna first and then make the trade after he clears.  If he clears we have the exact same trade and if he doesn't the trade never happens.  

Didn’t Benning say Leipsic’s situation had nothing to do with the Leivo trade?

Edited January 4, 2019 by Sean Monahan

[Boudrias]

5 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

But why are you so willing to have your management assume the risk and not Ottawa?  Don't be concerned with the Sen's goaltending depth when Vancouver has only two healthy goalies under NHL contracts. 

Maybe that was why they got the 6th rdr? You make total sense and I have to assume that Benning knew the risk. Has the kid from Kalamazoo ECHL played any games in Utica? 

[Drop Em]

3 hours ago, stawns said:

Which gave the team a solid two way player

So they grossly overpaid in both term and money for a solid player, that everyone (except for you apparently) can agree has been a very big disappointment.....and based on his increasing age and decreasing foot speed, isn't going to get any better. I hope they don't sign too many more "solid" players like that, whoever is responsible for it.

[UticaHockey]

8 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Maybe that was why they got the 6th rdr? You make total sense and I have to assume that Benning knew the risk. Has the kid from Kalamazoo ECHL played any games in Utica? 

Kulbakov is on an AHL contract and after having a few good games when Demko was out has been very bad lately.  He gave up 8 goals in his only game since being recalled from Kzoo.  There is no way that he should be considered for a NHL contract and potential goalie depth if Markstrom or Demko get hurt.  

[The Beagle had landed]

23 minutes ago, UticaHockey said:

But why are you so willing to have your management assume the risk and not Ottawa?  Don't be concerned with the Sen's goaltending depth when Vancouver has only two healthy goalies under NHL contracts. 

These are the risks you need to make sometimes.  Like I said, the 6th was probably added because of the risk and I'm fine with that.

 

I'm sure Benning and Johnson have contingency plans in place for the goaltending situations.  We just all need to be patient and have faith in the process.

[GoldenAlien]

4 hours ago, UticaHockey said:

Yes it probably wasn't wise to have three waiver eligible goalies on the roster to start the season.  But consider this while using the same example of the Leivo trade......

 

Maybe the Canucks didn't have a good trading partner that would have brought back a goalie that already cleared waivers and maybe they liked the Ottawa deal better if they did.  The proper move when considering risk management would be to insist that Ottawa waives McKenna first and then make the trade after he clears.  If he clears we have the exact same trade and if he doesn't the trade never happens.  

We're talking about Anders Nilsson here, he of 0.895 SV% and 3.09 GAA.  Why in the world would OTT, or any other team, bend over backwards for Nilsson?  Say they waive McKenna, he gets claimed, then VAN doesn't do the deal.  Then OTT is left with only one goalie.  Why would they take that risk just to have a chance at a goalie who is 46th in the league in SV%?   

 

Trading a goalie is not like trading a skater.  Teams usually have several spare skaters in the NHL/ AHL, but only a set number of goalies.  If a team already has 2 NHL goalies, they have to give one back if they take Nilsson; they wouldn't just give back an AHL goalie.  Even if they were willing to, the Canucks were looking for a goalie on an expiring deal.  Below are the goalies who are set to go UFA in 2019 but have already passed through waivers, and the reasons why their teams were likely not interested in Nilsson:  

 

Jean-Francois Berube -- CBJ -- Bobrovsky starts the lion share of the games.  Why trade for Nilsson?

Joe Cannata -- COL -- Currently has three goalies on roster. 

Harri Sateri -- DET -- Rebuilding team, has Howard and Bernier.

Al Montoya -- EDM -- Had Nilsson before, didn't work out.

Peter Budaj -- LAK -- Dead last in the NHL.  Has Quick and Campbell. 

Andrew Hammond -- MIN -- Has Dubnyk and Stalock.

Eddie Lack -- NJD -- Kinkaid has been better than Nilsson and Blackwood looks extremely promising.  Will eventually get Schneider back.

Troy Grosenick -- NSH -- Has Rinne and Saros.

Dustin Tokarski -- NYR --  Rebuilding team, Lundqvist starts most of the games anyway.

Marek Mazanec -- NYR -- See above.

John Muse -- PIT -- Has Murray and DeSmith.

Jared Coreau -- STL -- They just got him from ANA on Jan. 3.  ANA already had Gibson, Johnson and Miller on NHL contracts, doubt they wanted Nilsson.

Edward Pasquale -- TBL -- Has Vasilevskiy and Domingue.

 

Instead of spouting false equivalencies, why don't you point out a deal that Benning could've done that would've netted Vancouver the same return. 

 

Not to mention, Leipsic was never a part of the Leivo deal.  Per LeBrun:

Leipsic was put on waivers on Dec. 2., before Benning inquired about Leivo.  If you're privy to discussions between the Canucks and Leafs that was missed by LeBrun, please do share.

Edited January 4, 2019 by GoldenAlien