The Succession Plan

[MrCanuck94]

Hello fellow Canucks fans and hockey fans. So I have been trying to figure out our succession plan moving forward and how our line-up may look in the future. Before I continue, this is not me saying any piece I think is expendable means they will/should be traded, or that the players I believe will make the team will make it right away, just a general idea of who is untouchable and who isn’t and where they may fit moving forward, especially with our roster becoming very crowded.

 

Currently, this is how I see our core:

 

Miller - Pettersson - Boeser

2LW - Horvat - 2RW

3LW - 3C - Virtanen

Motte - 4C - 4RW

Players not listed: Pearson, Leivo, Roussel, Gaudette, Beagle, Sutter, Ferland, Schaller, Eriksson, Baertschi

Prospects:

LW: Hogslander, Goldobin, Gadjovich, Palmu, McDonough

RW: Podkolzin, Lind, Jasek, Macewen, Lockwood, Plasek

C: Madden, Focht, Karlsson

 

Hughes - Tanev

2LD - 2RD

3LD - 3RD

Players not listed: Myers, Edler, Stecher, Fantenberg, Benn

Prospects:

LD: Juolevi, Rathbone, Tryamkin, Brisebois, Utunen, Sautner, Teves

RD: Woo, Rafferty, Chatfield

 

Markstrom

Demko

Prospects: Dipietro, Kielly, Silovs, Thiessen

 

Thanks to our management team, we have drafted very well, and with Jim and co. improving in their abilities to trade and sign players, our team is trending towards having a strong core supplemented by great pieces constantly for the next decade or two. The fact that we were able to pull 2 franchise level players with 5th and 7th overall picks is amazing.

 

To the dim side of Canucks nation, yes, our management has made some mistakes and their strategy at times wasn’t the best, but welcome to the real world of business, the key is that they are learning and improving at their job and it’s boding well for us in the future. All of us have had a learning curve when starting a new job, especially at a higher position.

 

Next, what pieces do we bank on and keep, and the result of this, who is expendable to cover a missing piece or improve a weaker area? Personally, this is how I visualize our team moving forward:

 

Miller - Pettersson - Boeser

Hoglander - Horvat - Podkolzin

Pearson/Ferland - Madden - Virtanen

Motte - ? - Macewen/Lockwood

Expendable: Leivo, Roussel, Gaudette, Sutter, Beagle, Goldobin, Gadjovich, Palmu, McDonough, Lind, Jasek, Lockwood, Plasek, Focht, Karlsson.

Let go: Schaller, Eriksson, Baerstchi.

 

Hoglander and Podkolzin look like amazing picks, they are both playing in mens leagues and their transition should be smoother than others. Would not surprise me if they are on the main squad sooner than later.

On the left side, I feel it is crucial to keep Pearson and Ferland until Hoglander has made the team. With Pearson, we maintain someone who can produce with Bo and helps us stay heavy. Ferland has major risk with his health, however, if he can return healthy, he can provide us with 40 points and physical play. Keeping Pearson is a must with the amount of risk with Ferland. 

Motte I see as a core piece in the bottom 6. 

 

This is my hot take. I would rather bank on Madden than Gaudette. I’m no scout but I have a gut feeling from what I’ve seen that Madden will be the better player, plus for a 3C, he also plays with some snarl. I’m not sure how great he is defensively but Gaudette has been poor on face-offs and has not been trusted with defensive duties. I also don’t think Gaudette’s potential ceiling is as high as many think it is, however, I am open to being proven wrong. Sutter can cover for Madden for another season or two until he is ready for the jump.

I’m not sure about the 4C position, but it should be easy to fill in UFA moving forward once Beagle’s contract is over.

 

Jake has taken a step and is now a very good tweener with his fast and physical play, we cannot let him go.

I don’t know who to bank on between Macewen or Lockwood. They both seem like good bottom 6 guys, however, Macdaddy brings more size along with the speed and physicality, so he may be a safer choice. Lind can also be in a role like this to start out, however, as an asset he may be more valuable in trade to help us bring in something else.

 

To summarize, Gaudette and Lind are expendable to me and can provide some solid trade value moving forward. The rest may be able to pick up decent value.

 

Hughes - Tanev/Upgrade via trade

Juolevi - Woo

Rathbone - Rafferty

 

Expendable: Fantenberg, Benn, Edler, Stecher, Tryamkin, Brisebois, Utunen, Sautter, Teves, Myers, Chatfield

 

Hughes, nuff said.

Tanev is the perfect piece to play with Hughes. Unless we can trade for a top pair RHD, he fits the bill.

Juolevi is being groomed to take over Edler’s minutes. He will be crucial to our success moving forward and is becoming a PK beast in Utica while scoring at a very nice pace.

 

I believe in Woo, hopefully he can be our Bieksa moving forward. While he is developing, we can manage with Myers and Tryamkin. Once he is ready, I see them as expendable.

Rathbone is one of my favourite prospects and trending to be a better piece than where I have him. Him translating will make our D one of the strongest in the league.

Rafferty is having a strong season in Utica and should be a main stay sooner than later. Definitely seems like he is setting the inevitable end to Stecher’s tenure as a Canuck, making him an expendable piece.

 

Our expendable pieces on D are probably not worth much, but I’m sure some can be there as 7-8 dmen and the rest may be able to be had for decent value.

 

Demko

Dipietro

 

Expendable: Markstrom, Kielly, Silovs, Thiessen

 

I believe in Markstrom, but I also believe in cap space and age. There will be some growing pains, however, Demko has proven to be a solid NHL goalie and is looking more and more like a starter. Yes it would be nice to have him groomed a little longer, but the business side of things may prevent this. We can still move on from Marky, get a nice asset, and sign a cheaper 1B goalie for the next couple of seasons until Mikey is ready.

 

This is my summary, what are your opinions? Reality is that we cannot keep everyone, so who do you believe players will be ready to make the jump soon, who would you keep and who do you think is expendable? Discuss!

 

[Lancaster]

Pearson might be a long-term piece going forward.  While he seemingly has been around forever, he's only a couple of years older than Horvat.  Decent stats, championship experience... he's probably a keeper.  

[J.I.A.H.N]

32 minutes ago, MrCanuck94 said:

 

Currently, this is how I see our core:

 

Miller - Pettersson - Boeser

2LW - Horvat - 2RW

3LW - 3C - Virtanen

Motte - 4C - 4RW

Players not listed: Pearson, Leivo, Roussel, Gaudette, Beagle, Sutter, Ferland, Schaller, Eriksson, Baertschi

Prospects:

LW: Hogslander, Goldobin, Gadjovich, Palmu, McDonough

RW: Podkolzin, Lind, Jasek, Macewen, Lockwood, Plasek

C: Madden, Focht, Karlsson

 

Hughes - Tanev

2LD - 2RD

3LD - 3RD

Players not listed: Myers, Edler, Stecher, Fantenberg, Benn

Prospects:

LD: Juolevi, Rathbone, Tryamkin, Brisebois, Utunen, Sautner, Teves

RD: Woo, Rafferty, Chatfield

 

Markstrom

Demko

Prospects: Dipietro, Kielly, Silovs, Thiessen

 

Next, what pieces do we bank on and keep, and the result of this, who is expendable to cover a missing piece or improve a weaker area? Personally, this is how I visualize our team moving forward:

 

Miller - Pettersson - Boeser

Hoglander - Horvat - Podkolzin

Pearson/Ferland - Madden - Virtanen

Motte - ? - MacEwen/Lockwood

Expendable: Leivo, Roussel, Gaudette, Sutter, Beagle, Goldobin, Gadjovich, Palmu, McDonough, Lind, Jasek, Lockwood, Plasek, Focht, Karlsson.

Let go: Schaller, Eriksson, Baerstchi.

 

This is my hot take. I would rather bank on Madden than Gaudette. .

I don’t know who to bank on between MacEwen or Lockwood.  Lind can also be in a role like this to start out, however, as an asset he may be more valuable in trade 

 

To summarize, Gaudette and Lind are expendable to me and can provide some solid trade value moving forward. The rest may be able to pick up decent value.

 

Hughes - Tanev/Upgrade via trade

Juolevi - Woo

Rathbone - Rafferty

 

Expendable: Fantenberg, Benn, Edler, Stecher, Tryamkin, Brisebois, Utunen, Sautter, Teves, Myers, Chatfield

 

Demko

Dipietro

 

Expendable: Markstrom, Kielly, Silovs, Thiessen

 

I just did a spread sheet on this last night, asking myself the very same questions

 

First off, I think you are too quick to rule out other prospects...….aka....McDonough, Lind, Focht, Karlsson, and Utunen..totally untested

2ndly, Myers has 4 more years on his contract, and Tryamkin is an freak, that needs to be given time to show his wares

3rdly Madden is so small and you have really discounted Gaudette, who is only in his second year

 

It is not that I disagree with your premise, as your opinions are as good as mine...……..

 

But if we are building for the future, which I don't think Benning is...….(I think he is now working in the present)

 

I agree with most...……….

 

Personally, I would trade Tanev and Markstrom  and start the crusade next year...…..but that is me......not Benning!

[6string]

37 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Pearson might be a long-term piece going forward.  While he seemingly has been around forever, he's only a couple of years older than Horvat.  Decent stats, championship experience... he's probably a keeper.  

He may be wearing the A one day too.

[coastal.view]

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

I just did a spread sheet on this last night, asking myself the very same questions

 

First off, I think you are too quick to rule out other prospects...….aka....McDonough, Lind, Focht, Karlsson, and Utunen..totally untested

2ndly, Myers has 4 more years on his contract, and Tryamkin is an freak, that needs to be given time to show his wares

3rdly Madden is so small and you have really discounted Gaudette, who is only in his second year

 

It is not that I disagree with your premise, as your opinions are as good as mine...……..

 

But if we are building for the future, which I don't think Benning is...….(I think he is now working in the present)

 

I agree with most...……….

 

Personally, I would trade Tanev and Markstrom  and start the crusade next year...…..but that is me......not Benning!

this

guad has size and skill

we are tied to meyers due to his contract

tryam needs to prove himself

 

i also think pearson is underrated and a solid player for this team

i agree motte is a keeper, he is not a core player, but worth keeping for sure

i'd also think hard and long about moving on from tanev

he has had a lot to do with hughes accelerated development

(or maybe i am not understanding what you are proposing)

 

it really is ok to have a couple of older veterans on the team

not sure why the need to dispense with anyone slightly older

Edited February 8, 2020 by coastal.view

[Moose Nuckle]

1 hour ago, 6string said:

He may be wearing the A one day too.

Yea when Eriksson wears the C!

[J.I.A.H.N]

33 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

this

guad has size and skill

we are tied to meyers due to his contract

tryam needs to prove himself

 

i also think pearson is underrated and a solid player for this team

i agree motte is a keeper, he is not a core player, but worth keeping for sure

i'd also think hard and long about moving on from tanev

he has had a lot to do with hughes accelerated development

(or maybe i am not understanding what you are proposing)

 

it really is ok to have a couple of older veterans on the team

not sure why the need to dispense with anyone slightly older

I actually do agree with you Coastal

I do think Tanev is benefitting from Hughes more than the other way around, but who cares if it works. Right?

 

I am sorry for sounding like a broken record on Tryamkin, but I just seen a lot of upside in him

and everything I read and hear, says he is better, now, and that stands to reason. IMO

I am puzzled on some posters views on Tryamkin....only Tanev had a plus on their whole Defence the last year Tryamkin played here

and Tryamkin was ahead of Edler, Gudbranson, Stecher, and Hutton by a substantial amount

 

I think Pearson is underrated also, but come two years from now, I believe we will have a traffic jam...…..not a bad thing!

I have enjoyed this year, but I see it as premature...but Benning doesn't, which is why he got Miller and Myers

which worked out as planned, so who am I to say otherwise...…..

[6string]

27 minutes ago, Moose Nuckle said:

Yea when Eriksson wears the C!

You have his jersey don't ya?

[MrCanuck94]

3 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

I just did a spread sheet on this last night, asking myself the very same questions

 

First off, I think you are too quick to rule out other prospects...….aka....McDonough, Lind, Focht, Karlsson, and Utunen..totally untested

2ndly, Myers has 4 more years on his contract, and Tryamkin is an freak, that needs to be given time to show his wares

3rdly Madden is so small and you have really discounted Gaudette, who is only in his second year

 

It is not that I disagree with your premise, as your opinions are as good as mine...……..

 

But if we are building for the future, which I don't think Benning is...….(I think he is now working in the present)

 

I agree with most...……….

 

Personally, I would trade Tanev and Markstrom  and start the crusade next year...…..but that is me......not Benning!

Not ruling them off, I actually like many of them, but we only have so much room on the roster. Makes sense to start trading the excess for other needed assets as others start making the team.

Yes, I'm a Myers fan and realistically I don't see us moving on from him, but I'm high on Woo and can see him making Myers expendable if he still has value when time comes.

Same with Gaudette, I don't think he's bad, but possibly slightly overrated. If Petey taught us anything, don't discount a player on his size, Madden plays hard!

 

Most of our team is young now. Benning did build for the future, and the future is now! I would trade Marky too and only trade Tanman if we find a better replacement on that top pair.

[smithers joe]

all good ideas and speculations, i agree with most of them, but my question is, what kind of player is horvat? what kinds of players would best suit him? is he a playmaker, scorer or mostly grit. what element of his game lends itself to being a good linemate. we know he is quick, has a good shot and finishes his checks.  can anyone access bo’s playing style and detemine what he needs to be more successful?

when samuelsson was here, he was a shoot first player, so when he was with the sedins, if he carried the puck into the zone and shoot. the sedins were not involved in that offense. does anyone see what i mean?

Edited February 8, 2020 by smithers joe

[mikeyman109]

I think the Succession plan is already in place. You have the core pieces in Horvat, Petterson, Miller, Boeser, Hughes, ( im going to say Demko but it could also be argued Marky) that's the new core,

it has replaced Henrik, Daniel, Edler, Kesler and Burrows, Luongo as they replaced Naslund, Morrison , Bertuzzi, Ohlund and Salo etc.

What really is important is what pieces get added to the mix. Every team has to go through the process of moving the aging players out, and bringing in the support pieces that will take the team over the edge. Think Malhotra, Lapierre, Torres in 2011.

This is the tough part. Drafting Petterson was a bit of a gamble but it paid off. Hughes was a no brainer, same for Pod, i am not sold on Hoglander yet but if he shows up then great. Where the challenge is finding the players to compliment what you have. Thats why we have been through so many  Middle six forwards. Finding a player or players to play with BO. I like Pearson and even  Leivo but if they cant play top 6 they may be dead weight.

Jake can be an effective player with Miller and Petey. Boeser needs to play with Bo. Thats where he has had the most success before the Petey line.

Our biggest need is going to be on D. Hughes is already a star.

Edler, Tanev, Benn, all older D men and Tanev and Edler play huge minutes a game. who replaces them? That's three of the top 7 we will need to replace in the next 2 or so years.

Stecher, Myers, Fantenberg, well Myers is here long term unless Seattle claims him in the ED.

Can Woo, Juolevi, Brisebois, Rafferty, develop into even bottom 5-6 D men? Tryamkin a lot of people holding their breath waiting for him to return....I am not sure he will but it would help.

so many questions but we have a solid core already. Now JB has to find

the next Malhotra, it not Beagle although the guy is a warrior.

The next Lapierre and Torres.

The Next Kesler. its not Sutter. we need a Selke candidate forward

its a work in progress for sure but the Core is already there

[Provost]

This is the idea of how we have to think, because folks get attached to every one of our prospects and players... and don't really think as much about how our roster shapes up in coming years.
I do have some argument with including Tanev and Motte as core pieces.  I think we should do what we can to re-sign Tanev, but that is a short term solution.  There is no reasonable expectation he will still be a viable top 4 guy three years from now.  Lots of metrics have shown that he has slowed down a lot even this year, and entirely relies on having a guy like Hughes carry the puck for him.  That isn't a trend that is going to get better, it won't be long before his mentorship and stability on that pairing turn into a drag that Hughes is carrying.
Motte is a nice little energy player, but pretty replaceable and that is a roster spot ideal for some of our prospects to slot into for the coming years.

Between now and 2021, here is a list of player that could/should be moved out or not re-signed, and prospects who "could" be ready to make the leap.

Players that could be let go or traded:

Eriksson, Leivo, Baertschi, Sutter, Schaller, Ferland, Benn, Fantenberg, Roussel, Motte

Players that "should" be re-signed: Markstrom, Tanev (if unable to do that, then Stecher), Petterson, Hughes, Virtanen, Edler, Pearson (depending on price and if Hoglander and/or Podkolzin is ready)

Prospects that could potentially be ready: Hoglander, Juolevi, Tryamkin, Rafferty, MacEwan, Bailey, Lind, Dipietro, Podkolzin, Rafferty, Rathbone, Woo, Madden, Brisebois

One thing that is clear is that we have quite a few "possible" prospects who likely slot in on the lower end of the roster, certainly at least initially, and a lot of veterans signed to inefficient contracts who are taking up those spots and not vacating them fast enough.
We don't have a lot of higher end prospects now that we have had so many graduate into the lineup.  Hoglander and Podkolzin are our exceptions, and they are young enough we still have no idea.

We probably don't need as many centres as we have prospects for since Petterson and Hughes fill two of the slots for many years.  One of Madden or Gaudette is likely not going to be on our roster going forward.  That is a possible asset to move out to shed cap.

We have quite a few defencemen who are likely #5-8 guys, certainly at least for the next few years.  No one realistically expects Juolevi to be a top 4 guy within two years.  We also can't have an all rookie third pairing as that is a recipe for disaster.  That means there are limited spots to be taken by 1-2 of Juolevi, Tryamkin, or Rafferty (I am not as high on Brisebois).  It also means that re-signing Edler in two years is likely a good idea to be a stabilizing presence and "hopefully" work his way down the roster as young guys are ready for more meaningful minutes.  Ideally by the time Edler is ready to retire maybe 4 years from now, we have Hughes as the top pairing and Juolevi as the 2nd pairing D.

To me, we really need to see what a couple of young guys look like by the end of this year to project if they might be ready for a roster spot next season.  Juolevi, Tryamkin, Bailey, and Rafferty need a look, and hopefully there is an opportunity to do so.  We are also in a playoff race, so can't just do it if we think it could cost us.  We know what a guy like MacEwan gives us, so slotting in Bailey for a few games instead seems smart.  We also know what Benn gives us, so slotting in a young guy for a few games instead seems smart too.

 

[189lb enforcers?]

Ifs and buts. 

 

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

29 minutes ago, Provost said:

This is the idea of how we have to think, because folks get attached to every one of our prospects and players... and don't really think as much about how our roster shapes up in coming years.
I do have some argument with including Tanev and Motte as core pieces.  I think we should do what we can to re-sign Tanev, but that is a short term solution.  There is no reasonable expectation he will still be a viable top 4 guy three years from now.  Lots of metrics have shown that he has slowed down a lot even this year, and entirely relies on having a guy like Hughes carry the puck for him.  That isn't a trend that is going to get better, it won't be long before his mentorship and stability on that pairing turn into a drag that Hughes is carrying.
Motte is a nice little energy player, but pretty replaceable and that is a roster spot ideal for some of our prospects to slot into for the coming years.

Between now and 2021, here is a list of player that could/should be moved out or not re-signed, and prospects who "could" be ready to make the leap.

Players that could be let go or traded:

Eriksson, Leivo, Baertschi, Sutter, Schaller, Ferland, Benn, Fantenberg, Roussel, Motte

Players that "should" be re-signed: Markstrom, Tanev (if unable to do that, then Stecher), Petterson, Hughes, Virtanen, Edler, Pearson (depending on price and if Hoglander and/or Podkolzin is ready)

Prospects that could potentially be ready: Hoglander, Juolevi, Tryamkin, Rafferty, MacEwan, Bailey, Lind, Dipietro, Podkolzin, Rafferty, Rathbone, Woo, Madden, Brisebois

One thing that is clear is that we have quite a few "possible" prospects who likely slot in on the lower end of the roster, certainly at least initially, and a lot of veterans signed to inefficient contracts who are taking up those spots and not vacating them fast enough.
We don't have a lot of higher end prospects now that we have had so many graduate into the lineup.  Hoglander and Podkolzin are our exceptions, and they are young enough we still have no idea.

We probably don't need as many centres as we have prospects for since Petterson and Hughes fill two of the slots for many years.  One of Madden or Gaudette is likely not going to be on our roster going forward.  That is a possible asset to move out to shed cap.

We have quite a few defencemen who are likely #5-8 guys, certainly at least for the next few years.  No one realistically expects Juolevi to be a top 4 guy within two years.  We also can't have an all rookie third pairing as that is a recipe for disaster.  That means there are limited spots to be taken by 1-2 of Juolevi, Tryamkin, or Rafferty (I am not as high on Brisebois).  It also means that re-signing Edler in two years is likely a good idea to be a stabilizing presence and "hopefully" work his way down the roster as young guys are ready for more meaningful minutes.  Ideally by the time Edler is ready to retire maybe 4 years from now, we have Hughes as the top pairing and Juolevi as the 2nd pairing D.

To me, we really need to see what a couple of young guys look like by the end of this year to project if they might be ready for a roster spot next season.  Juolevi, Tryamkin, Bailey, and Rafferty need a look, and hopefully there is an opportunity to do so.  We are also in a playoff race, so can't just do it if we think it could cost us.  We know what a guy like MacEwan gives us, so slotting in Bailey for a few games instead seems smart.  We also know what Benn gives us, so slotting in a young guy for a few games instead seems smart too.

 

This is pretty much how I feel as well.....very well articulated

 

My concern with the posters plan, is he starts moving out prospects, without ever having them develop or seeing what they can do at the pro level.

I must admit, as much as I like Gaudette, he is somewhat a inconsistent player, but he is young and I believe needs a chance to mature as a player

Provost, you list Tryamkin, Juolevi, Rafferty, and Bailey as players that need being looked at...…….I could not agree with you more

I would like McEwen to have more playing time also...…...I will call that our 2nd wave of prospects that are coming...…….

 

Our 3rd wave, which I believe includes Podkolzin, Hoglander, Madden, Brisebois, Rathbone, Woo, and DiPietro are just a year or 2 away, in general,

there is still a large amount of turnover that could happen in a short time (2 to 3 years)( I remember Boston having 6 rookies in their line up a couple of years ago)

So, there will be the potential for a lot of turn over within a very short period of time. I keep cautioning people not to fall in love with our current roster

to the extent, we don't or can't see players moved...….

 

With cap restrictions, prospect graduation, and player decline, there should be considerable movement over the next 2 to 3 years

Personally, my time line and Benning's are not meshing all that well, as I see our time, in 2 or 3 years, and the present as the start of the great purge

Provost, you named a group of players that need to be moved, and I agree with you completely, but I also see, it going further, and causing us to take a step back,

as I believe Benning, should bite the bullet and move Markstrom and Tanev, while both are at the top of their game, and will bring in the most return.

I doubt that will happen, in fact I will almost guarantee it will not, but It is the trap of the I want it now crowd. I am of the build a strong foundation crowd.

Having Assets walk away, just bugs the crap out of me, also seeing us sell late, bugs me as well.

 

But in saying all that, Benning went out and got Miller and Myers, and I don't see him deviating too much from his plan. I would be shocked if he did much in the way

of moving any players at this TDL.....maybe Stecher, as he is the only unknown in regards to cost going forward?

It will be interesting, that is for sure!

 

As Joe says...……."In Benning we trust!"...…..I am good with that.

 

 

[Provost]

5 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

This is pretty much how I feel as well.....very well articulated

 

My concern with the posters plan, is he starts moving out prospects, without ever having them develop or seeing what they can do at the pro level.

I must admit, as much as I like Gaudette, he is somewhat a inconsistent player, but he is young and I believe needs a chance to mature as a player

Provost, you list Tryamkin, Juolevi, Rafferty, and Bailey as players that need being looked at...…….I could not agree with you more

I would like McEwen to have more playing time also...…...I will call that our 2nd wave of prospects that are coming...…….

 

Our 3rd wave, which I believe includes Podkolzin, Hoglander, Madden, Brisebois, Rathbone, Woo, and DiPietro are just a year or 2 away, in general,

there is still a large amount of turnover that could happen in a short time (2 to 3 years)( I remember Boston having 6 rookies in their line up a couple of years ago)

So, there will be the potential for a lot of turn over within a very short period of time. I keep cautioning people not to fall in love with our current roster

to the extent, we don't or can't see players moved...….

 

With cap restrictions, prospect graduation, and player decline, there should be considerable movement over the next 2 to 3 years

Personally, my time line and Benning's are not meshing all that well, as I see our time, in 2 or 3 years, and the present as the start of the great purge

Provost, you named a group of players that need to be moved, and I agree with you completely, but I also see, it going further, and causing us to take a step back,

as I believe Benning, should bite the bullet and move Markstrom and Tanev, while both are at the top of their game, and will bring in the most return.

I doubt that will happen, in fact I will almost guarantee it will not, but It is the trap of the I want it now crowd. I am of the build a strong foundation crowd.

Having Assets walk away, just bugs the crap out of me, also seeing us sell late, bugs me as well.

 

But in saying all that, Benning went out and got Miller and Myers, and I don't see him deviating too much from his plan. I would be shocked if he did much in the way

of moving any players at this TDL.....maybe Stecher, as he is the only unknown in regards to cost going forward?

It will be interesting, that is for sure!

 

As Joe says...……."In Benning we trust!"...…..I am good with that.

 

 

I don't really see us contending for some time *you can always get lucky), but I also see that if we currently do nothing, we will actually be getting worse with losing players we can't afford but "should" sign purely in hockey terms... and I see that as a worse thing than you do.

I think we should focus on getting incrementally better year over year, and wouldn't support moving good players like Tanev and Markstrom now for future assets.  I think it would just be too damaging to the room and cost us more down the road.  Players don't think in 5 year plans, and if they sniff a management that isn't trying to win now, we will have to be overpaying them to stay and that can cost us our success in the future by tacking on an extra million or so to each contract's AAV.  Pure asset management is muddied by that.  Intellectually I could agree that moving Markstrom at the deadline would return us a really good haul, but I don't think it is in the plan or that it is advisable because we are dealing with humans who react to things like that.

I have posted numerous times how I think now is the time to exit as many of those inefficient veterans contracts right now, even at the expense of futures.  It allows us to keep on an upwards trajectory and get our young guys to buy in.  If we keep all the players in the next two upcoming seasons that we might otherwise lose to cap concerns (Tanev, Markstrom, Edler, Virtanen), and fill other gaps with any young prospects who are ready or cheap veteran 1 year deals (a la Vanek)... then in 2022-23 we are positioned REALLY well in being able to actually add a high end UFA or two to fill in any remaining gaps from prospects that don't end up working out.  I agree, that is the year where we should be thinking about starting to be a perennial playoff team that might even be able to contend.

To me, any picks that aren't our remaining 1st round one, and almost any of our prospects (aside from Hoglander or Podkolzin) could be expended in order to get rid of Eriksson, Sutter, and Baertschi without having to retain salary.  Sutter I don't see being moved out until the offseason, as there is nothing to indicate Benning would want to take out a useful veteran during a playoff run just for cap reasons  Our only roster players that could be potential trade chips would be Demko (or Markstrom if we felt we couldn't re-sign him to a decent number), Stecher, and Virtanen.  The veterans we have don't have value compared with their contracts or we can't spare (eg. Miller and Pearson), and the other young players are effectively untouchable or not worth a lot in trade.

So this trade deadline for me is.  Use other team's playoff desperation/poor deadline decision making to try to exit a guy like Baertschi or Eriksson.

This offseason, try to move Sutter out and sign our higher end prospects.  Find any unsigned veterans near the end of the summer for 1 year deals who can be waived or used as depth if a prospect like Hoglander steals a roster spot.  It almost never goes badly because they cost you almost nothing in cap, and at worst can be waived or used as deadline assets if you are out of the playoff picture and want to see kids play the meaningless games at the end of the season.
 

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

I don't really see us contending for some time *you can always get lucky), but I also see that if we currently do nothing, we will actually be getting worse with losing players we can't afford but "should" sign purely in hockey terms... and I see that as a worse thing than you do.

I think we should focus on getting incrementally better year over year, and wouldn't support moving good players like Tanev and Markstrom now for future assets.  I think it would just be too damaging to the room and cost us more down the road.  Players don't think in 5 year plans, and if they sniff a management that isn't trying to win now, we will have to be overpaying them to stay and that can cost us our success in the future by tacking on an extra million or so to each contract's AAV.  Pure asset management is muddied by that.  Intellectually I could agree that moving Markstrom at the deadline would return us a really good haul, but I don't think it is in the plan or that it is advisable because we are dealing with humans who react to things like that.

I have posted numerous times how I think now is the time to exit as many of those inefficient veterans contracts right now, even at the expense of futures.  It allows us to keep on an upwards trajectory and get our young guys to buy in.  If we keep all the players in the next two upcoming seasons that we might otherwise lose to cap concerns (Tanev, Markstrom, Edler, Virtanen), and fill other gaps with any young prospects who are ready or cheap veteran 1 year deals (a la Vanek)... then in 2022-23 we are positioned REALLY well in being able to actually add a high end UFA or two to fill in any remaining gaps from prospects that don't end up working out.  I agree, that is the year where we should be thinking about starting to be a perennial playoff team that might even be able to contend.

To me, any picks that aren't our remaining 1st round one, and almost any of our prospects (aside from Hoglander or Podkolzin) could be expended in order to get rid of Eriksson, Sutter, and Baertschi without having to retain salary.  Sutter I don't see being moved out until the offseason, as there is nothing to indicate Benning would want to take out a useful veteran during a playoff run just for cap reasons  Our only roster players that could be potential trade chips would be Demko (or Markstrom if we felt we couldn't re-sign him to a decent number), Stecher, and Virtanen.  The veterans we have don't have value compared with their contracts or we can't spare (eg. Miller and Pearson), and the other young players are effectively untouchable or not worth a lot in trade.

So this trade deadline for me is.  Use other team's playoff desperation/poor deadline decision making to try to exit a guy like Baertschi or Eriksson.

This offseason, try to move Sutter out and sign our higher end prospects.  Find any unsigned veterans near the end of the summer for 1 year deals who can be waived or used as depth if a prospect like Hoglander steals a roster spot.  It almost never goes badly because they cost you almost nothing in cap, and at worst can be waived or used as deadline assets if you are out of the playoff picture and want to see kids play the meaningless games at the end of the season.
 

I think that is a pretty good take.

 

The one thing I'd probably add - aside from spending in an attempt to move an LE or Baertschi contract (dumping a Baer into an expiring Simmonds type deal may be a nice option) - and we'll never agree on Sutter, so I won't go there aside from saying I agree he's not likely to be moved, at least not in the short-term -  I'd probably opt to move Roussel, fairly promptly - moveable cap imo that might even bring a modest return (I consider him a relatively expendable/replaceable winger, even in the present).   If that return could mitigate the cost of dumping Baer into an expiring Simmonds deal, great.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

I don't really see us contending for some time *you can always get lucky), but I also see that if we currently do nothing, we will actually be getting worse with losing players we can't afford but "should" sign purely in hockey terms... and I see that as a worse thing than you do.

I think we should focus on getting incrementally better year over year, and wouldn't support moving good players like Tanev and Markstrom now for future assets.  I think it would just be too damaging to the room and cost us more down the road.  Players don't think in 5 year plans, and if they sniff a management that isn't trying to win now, we will have to be overpaying them to stay and that can cost us our success in the future by tacking on an extra million or so to each contract's AAV.  Pure asset management is muddied by that.  Intellectually I could agree that moving Markstrom at the deadline would return us a really good haul, but I don't think it is in the plan or that it is advisable because we are dealing with humans who react to things like that.

I have posted numerous times how I think now is the time to exit as many of those inefficient veterans contracts right now, even at the expense of futures.  It allows us to keep on an upwards trajectory and get our young guys to buy in.  If we keep all the players in the next two upcoming seasons that we might otherwise lose to cap concerns (Tanev, Markstrom, Edler, Virtanen), and fill other gaps with any young prospects who are ready or cheap veteran 1 year deals (a la Vanek)... then in 2022-23 we are positioned REALLY well in being able to actually add a high end UFA or two to fill in any remaining gaps from prospects that don't end up working out.  I agree, that is the year where we should be thinking about starting to be a perennial playoff team that might even be able to contend.

To me, any picks that aren't our remaining 1st round one, and almost any of our prospects (aside from Hoglander or Podkolzin) could be expended in order to get rid of Eriksson, Sutter, and Baertschi without having to retain salary.  Sutter I don't see being moved out until the offseason, as there is nothing to indicate Benning would want to take out a useful veteran during a playoff run just for cap reasons  Our only roster players that could be potential trade chips would be Demko (or Markstrom if we felt we couldn't re-sign him to a decent number), Stecher, and Virtanen.  The veterans we have don't have value compared with their contracts or we can't spare (eg. Miller and Pearson), and the other young players are effectively untouchable or not worth a lot in trade.

So this trade deadline for me is.  Use other team's playoff desperation/poor deadline decision making to try to exit a guy like Baertschi or Eriksson.

This offseason, try to move Sutter out and sign our higher end prospects.  Find any unsigned veterans near the end of the summer for 1 year deals who can be waived or used as depth if a prospect like Hoglander steals a roster spot.  It almost never goes badly because they cost you almost nothing in cap, and at worst can be waived or used as deadline assets if you are out of the playoff picture and want to see kids play the meaningless games at the end of the season.
 

Here is why I think the way I do..

But, first let me say, I do not believe Benning will do this

 

Our first wave was somewhat slow...……...Horvat, Virtanen, Pettersson, Hughes, Gaudette, and Demko (6)

These guys stepped in relatively quickly to various degrees, and they are here now...…….

 

The second wave...…...Tryamkin, Podkolzin, Hoglander, McEwen, Bailey, Madden, Lind, Joulevi, Rafferty, Rathbone and Brisebois  (11)

are here within the next year to a year and a half

 

The third wave, which is just as important are the later picks that simmer for a 2 or 3 years in the minors, or draft picks,

yet unchosen……..they possibly include Woo, Keppen, Focht, DiPietro, Gadjovich, Utunen, and 2020 draft picks

These, outside the possibly Woo, DiPietro and possibly our 2020 1st or 2nd, are long shots, and will be more complimentary players at best

 

So, I see that, the 3rd wave, is a lot shallower at present than the first 2 waves, and could use a nudge.

At the same time, I look at Tanev and Markstrom and see that they are near their ceilings, and are quickly approaching their aging out...…..

 

It is here that, IMO, we have to be careful, as I do not see us getting past the 2 round, over the next 2 years, and quite possibly 3 years, 

when our 2nd wave, has gained their experience. That is when I think we honestly compete.

 

Up until then, we have many middling type players, all of which are not drivers, taking up space until the second wave arrives

This includes Markstrom, Tanev, Pearson, Lievo, Sutter, Beagle, Roussel, Schaller, Edler, Benn, Baertschi, and Eriksson which are all

going to be in the way, soon. (This should not be the case with Markstrom)

 

Now, my point isn't that all of them should be gone, as I see a good argument to keep Markstrom, Tanev, Pearson, and Lievo in the short term.

But eventually, we hope that our young players push the older ones out...……...

 

So, as of today, what do I see us missing? Two things....size, and an Offensive RH Defenseman, hope we find them...…..

 

Again, as said on earlier posts, I do not expect Benning to see it this way, and I am curious how this next 2 years goes, which is why I am a fan

I love my team, and I love the growth, and I love the what IF's

 

As a rule, I am a Benning supporter, and think he is doing a great job, so this is just a time filler. I love debate, and love good points!

Even when I do not have an answer or counter point. And no, I have not received any GM offers.

 

Cheers!

[coastal.view]

17 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

I actually do agree with you Coastal

I do think Tanev is benefitting from Hughes more than the other way around, but who cares if it works. Right?

 

I am sorry for sounding like a broken record on Tryamkin, but I just seen a lot of upside in him

and everything I read and hear, says he is better, now, and that stands to reason. IMO

I am puzzled on some posters views on Tryamkin....only Tanev had a plus on their whole Defence the last year Tryamkin played here

and Tryamkin was ahead of Edler, Gudbranson, Stecher, and Hutton by a substantial amount

 

I think Pearson is underrated also, but come two years from now, I believe we will have a traffic jam...…..not a bad thing!

I have enjoyed this year, but I see it as premature...but Benning doesn't, which is why he got Miller and Myers

which worked out as planned, so who am I to say otherwise...…..

not many nhl players

can leave the nhl for multiple years

and then come back and play at a high level

only a few have managed this.. the elite ones

not sure tryamkin will transition back as well as so many believe

i mostly suggest that he has to prove himself

i do not assume he will do this successfully

 

[Provost]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

I think that is a pretty good take.

 

The one thing I'd probably add - aside from spending in an attempt to move an LE or Baertschi contract (dumping a Baer into an expiring Simmonds type deal may be a nice option) - and we'll never agree on Sutter, so I won't go there aside from saying I agree he's not likely to be moved, at least not in the short-term -  I'd probably opt to move Roussel, fairly promptly - moveable cap imo that might even bring a modest return (I consider him a relatively expendable/replaceable winger, even in the present).   If that return could mitigate the cost of dumping Baer into an expiring Simmonds deal, great.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't disagree with moving on from Roussel... though I can't imagine it going into playoffs where he will likely be more valuable than in the regular season.  That roster spot on t he 3rd/4th LW is one where we actually have prospects who can fill it and work their way into the lineup.  I would have no worries with a guy like Hoglander starting there as soon as next year, and seeing if he is able to learn in sheltered minutes.

The idea of moving Baertschi as money going out to get Simmonds is also one that makes sense, even if it means the pick we have to give turns from a 4th-5th to a 3rd-4th to make up for that extra year.
 

[J.I.A.H.N]

37 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

not many nhl players

can leave the nhl for multiple years

and then come back and play at a high level

only a few have managed this.. the elite ones

not sure tryamkin will transition back as well as so many believe

i mostly suggest that he has to prove himself

i do not assume he will do this successfully

 

I agree with you generally on this point

He will have to come back and prove himself

I have never said otherwise

As, IMO, every hockey player has to come back and prove himself every year

It is the way it is done

Recognizing that veteran hockey players get a little more time to do so, than rookies

I would imagine that Tryamkin has been scouted to death, this last year

IMO, he will not be offered a contract, unless Benning is fairly confident in his abilities.

Even before he gets here...….

A lot of things can be done off ice, well before he arrives through video

Again, IMO, Benning can not risk throwing Cap away, so he will have done his home work

Including watching tape of Tryamkin playing against Podkolzin, if they have actually played each other

But other players, that he knows have played Internationally, including those of the U20 teams

playing against him...…..all in all, what I am trying to say, is Benning has a pretty good idea on what he is getting

How he matches up with gap control against faster players etc...…..

IMO, Tryamkin will get a 2 year 2.75 Million contract, plus/minus $250,000 contract offer (prove it offer)

If he sucks, he will be the 7th Dman, if he plays well, who knows?

Yeah, I don't go for this leave and you suck, idea...….

Some guys have not even came over until later in their life and done well....Larinov, Radulov, etc Dmen as well

all who spent their early 20's not being developed properly in the KHL...…..yeah, right!

Just as a man, Tryamkin has developed, and as a Dman he has seen more, been exposed to different systems, etc

all going to develop him more...……..

Will he need time to adjust....I would be suprized if he doesn't

But if he is smart, he will be over in the summer, and playing in the summer, non-official training camp (UBC)

which will help...….more importantly, I hope his wife and him, have taken some English lessens

Please God - give him and his wife some English lessens

Edited February 9, 2020 by janisahockeynut