Are the next 2 seasons throw aways? (Discussion)

[J.I.A.H.N]

Well, I am wondering with the pandemic, if we should not be looking at the next 2 seasons as throwaways? The question arises out of the fact that we have to sign Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli, all of who are either at 30 years of age or getting very close. 

 

Markstrom………....30 years old, born Jan. 31, 1990

Tanev...…………….30 years old, born Dec. 28, 1989

Toffolli……………...28 years old, born April 28th, 1992

 

So, yes, if the seasons were normal, 2 of the 3 would be signed most likely to 4 or 5 year contracts, but with this season still in jeopardy, and a next season that could be shortened, the question remains, do we sign them long term, as I am sure they will be demanding?

 

The question to me, is it smart to sign these guys to long term deals, when this and next year are so up in the air, and the possibility that in both Markstrom and Tanev could start to be in decline.

 

Is the investment worth it long term? Or is it a more reasonable thing to accept the down grade short term, and plan for the uncertain future, 2 years down the road?

 

I think this is a very real question which, has raised its ugly head, and which all GM's will have to ask themselves going forward.

 

In any case, look for new contracts to be reshaped, both in years, and in the way payments are calculated in regards to special events (including pandemics). Why would owners continue to sign UFA's to long term contract, which they are legally require to continue to pay, only to see the expected down turns in the first full seasons, 2 years from now? It is a bigger risk in terms of investment. This will include signing bonuses, which have been a staple of most UFA contracts.

 

With the cap crunch, the down turn in economics, as well as the pandemic, I am not sure it is worth it?

[Outsiders]

I would sign Marky and Toffoli.

 

Marky's career had a slow start and he didn't take off until about a year and a half ago. He has low miles ( was a back up those first couple years), hasn't played in long playoff battles and such. Goalies play well into their 30's and it isn't a worry. I wouldn't get into a 6 or 7 year deal with him but a 4 or worst case 5 year deal shouldn't be a problem. 

 

Toffoli looked great in his limited time in Vancouver. I've always liked the player. In LA, he was about a  45-50PT player and considering LA isn't an offensive powerhouse, I could see him being closer to a 60PT guy here. That is of course with him playing next to Miller and Pettersson. In terms of a contract, I would like to see the Canucks sell Toffoli on the future and see if we can get him to take a bit less to win. Toffoli said himself in an interview the last few seasons in LA were tough because they weren't winning. I think winning is important to him and as long as he is getting a fair deal I think he would stay. On the open market in a normal year he would get around a 5 year deal in the 5.5 million range, depending on demand. However, with everything going on because Covid, I think if we offered Toffoli a 4 year deal in the 4.9 million range that we could get a deal done. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Outsiders

[Phil_314]

So the actual question at hand is, "do we sign Toffoli/ Markstrom/ Tanev long-term" and not "are the next 2 seasons throw away's".  Feeling misled by the title.

Anyways I think there has to be considerations, by player, agent and GM alike, of the financial ramifications of the pandemic.  If hometown/ "help the team be competitive" discounts were ever to be considered, I think the time is now, especially considering the flat cap. 

 

I'm not saying that they'll certainly accept it (either lower cap hit or shorter term) as a player can keep their pride and their perceived value and $$ figure in mind, but if say Tanev wanted to stay as much as he states, then it has to be on the back of their mind at the least.  At the same time I wouldn't be surprised if any of them priced themselves out and walked but it's perfectly reasonable to have 2 of them return at bargain deals.  Since the days of re-signing the Sedins to even the Boeser deal which is a relative bargain at $5.85 per, it seems like taking discounts has been part of the culture here.    

[coastal.view]

i think the title is misleading as well

 

and if it were accurate

i'd be a tad worried about hughes, ep40, brock, and our other young talent

who might not be on board throwing away keys seasons

of their likely very special careers

 

but this is the internet

where click bait titles seem to be encouraged

it's actually a good thing the post fails to live up to the title

 

[Silky mitts]

Jack rathbone we need this guy to pan out as a top four desperately 

[Rick Blight]

2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, I am wondering with the pandemic, if we should not be looking at the next 2 seasons as throwaways? The question arises out of the fact that we have to sign Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli, all of who are either at 30 years of age or getting very close. 

 

Markstrom………....30 years old, born Jan. 31, 1990

Tanev...…………….30 years old, born Dec. 28, 1989

Toffolli……………...28 years old, born April 28th, 1992

 

So, yes, if the seasons were normal, 2 of the 3 would be signed most likely to 4 or 5 year contracts, but with this season still in jeopardy, and a next season that could be shortened, the question remains, do we sign them long term, as I am sure they will be demanding?

 

The question to me, is it smart to sign these guys to long term deals, when this and next year are so up in the air, and the possibility that in both Markstrom and Tanev could start to be in decline.

 

Is the investment worth it long term? Or is it a more reasonable thing to accept the down grade short term, and plan for the uncertain future, 2 years down the road?

 

I think this is a very real question which, has raised its ugly head, and which all GM's will have to ask themselves going forward.

 

In any case, look for new contracts to be reshaped, both in years, and in the way payments are calculated in regards to special events (including pandemics). Why would owners continue to sign UFA's to long term contract, which they are legally require to continue to pay, only to see the expected down turns in the first full seasons, 2 years from now? It is a bigger risk in terms of investment. This will include signing bonuses, which have been a staple of most UFA contracts.

 

With the cap crunch, the down turn in economics, as well as the pandemic, I am not sure it is worth it?

Personally, I think it will be business as usual from a roster construction point of view. GMJB will know if he wants to sign these guys or not and for what term/salary. I doubt the the uncertainties created by the pandemic will influence his decisions.

 

As for the bolded part, I believe the current CBA gives the players 50% of league revenues and this is guesstimated to determine the salary cap each year.Most years the revenue comes in lower than projected and this leads to players being hit with escrow payments which, in recent years, has resulted in players being paid approximately 10% less than their contracts call for.If a season was cancelled there would be no league revenue and therefore there would be no salaries paid out to players......100% escrow payments.

[JustABandwagoner]

50 minutes ago, Silky mitts said:

Jack rathbone we need this guy to pan out as a top four desperately 

inb4 he signs with another team

[nux_win]

No season is a "throw away".  In fact no game is a "throw away".  We should try our best to win each and every game and every season we should try to win the cup.  Tanking is for losers.  Oh, and I'd sign Toffoli, Tanev, AND Markstrom (if possible).  There must be a way to dump Eriksson to free up some cash.  I want to see more of Toffoli.  We've seen enough of Tanev to know that we need his defensive effort.  And Markstrom has been brilliant this year.  Why get rid of any of them?  There's gotta be a way to keep all three.  Go Canucks Go!

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, I am wondering with the pandemic, if we should not be looking at the next 2 seasons as throwaways? The question arises out of the fact that we have to sign Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli, all of who are either at 30 years of age or getting very close. 

 

Markstrom………....30 years old, born Jan. 31, 1990

Tanev...…………….30 years old, born Dec. 28, 1989

Toffolli……………...28 years old, born April 28th, 1992

 

So, yes, if the seasons were normal, 2 of the 3 would be signed most likely to 4 or 5 year contracts, but with this season still in jeopardy, and a next season that could be shortened, the question remains, do we sign them long term, as I am sure they will be demanding?

 

The question to me, is it smart to sign these guys to long term deals, when this and next year are so up in the air, and the possibility that in both Markstrom and Tanev could start to be in decline.

 

Is the investment worth it long term? Or is it a more reasonable thing to accept the down grade short term, and plan for the uncertain future, 2 years down the road?

 

I think this is a very real question which, has raised its ugly head, and which all GM's will have to ask themselves going forward.

 

In any case, look for new contracts to be reshaped, both in years, and in the way payments are calculated in regards to special events (including pandemics). Why would owners continue to sign UFA's to long term contract, which they are legally require to continue to pay, only to see the expected down turns in the first full seasons, 2 years from now? It is a bigger risk in terms of investment. This will include signing bonuses, which have been a staple of most UFA contracts.

 

With the cap crunch, the down turn in economics, as well as the pandemic, I am not sure it is worth it?

The title of the thread has merit and I’ve felt this way before Covid 19 or anything else for awhile now.   I don’t think we can ice as deep a lineup next year - and for the most part we will be reliant on the emerging core taking another step cap-wise.  Have said several times over the course of the year to not be surprised or even expect a down year and another lottery pick next season.    
 

To me it’s not a lot different then the first year Luongo arrived.   With the exception that I don’t have any blinders on and think we will be president trophy winners anytime soon (but am hopeful we can challenge in our own division).  All I’m trying to say is good things are coming but we aren’t there yet.   
 

As far as your question goes no way for Tanev absolutely for Markstrom.  Tanev has a lot of hard miles on him and is often injured... or should I say always.  JM is a goalie with only a couple years of starter burden under him.  Bower player 14 AHL seasons before joining the NHL...Roy and Brodeur - not to mention Hasek who was around 27 when he went on his run of Vezina’s.   Have zero concern about signing JM, other then NOT signing him.  We will be ok without Tanev, heck 35% of the time he’s not there anyways.  That said I’d still want him here next year.  A one year deal is good for us - and right now UFAs won’t get nearly what they normally do so Tanev could come out of this roses too by playing next season, not getting majorly injured (two years in a row... is it possible ha ha) and cashing in somewhere else.      Most UFAs this year will be at a bargain relatively. 

 

 

[IBatch]

6 minutes ago, nux_win said:

No season is a "throw away".  In fact no game is a "throw away".  We should try our best to win each and every game and every season we should try to win the cup.  Tanking is for losers.  Oh, and I'd sign Toffoli, Tanev, AND Markstrom (if possible).  There must be a way to dump Eriksson to free up some cash.  I want to see more of Toffoli.  We've seen enough of Tanev to know that we need his defensive effort.  And Markstrom has been brilliant this year.  Why get rid of any of them?  There's gotta be a way to keep all three.  Go Canucks Go!

For sure.  It’s more about reasonable expectations then anything.  We won’t ice as deep a team next year / cap restricted and all.  Unless a player or two breakout we can’t expect a better result then this year that’s facts.   Sure it could happen, but it’s just as lowly to go down or maybe just stay around the same.   The other thing to consider is will QHs and EP earn their paycheques.  Most likely but they don’t always do (see Bobby Ryan).   I’m not at all worried about that though - I see us taking 2 or 3 more seasons before our peak starts...and then 4-6 years of the playoffs...every year before they make the it including this year is a bonus.

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, coastal.view said:

i think the title is misleading as well

 

and if it were accurate

i'd be a tad worried about hughes, ep40, brock, and our other young talent

who might not be on board throwing away keys seasons

of their likely very special careers

 

but this is the internet

where click bait titles seem to be encouraged

it's actually a good thing the post fails to live up to the title

 

Throw aways might be a bit dramatic but even without Covid the Macro view is we won’t be able to maximize the cap until they are over.  Hard to ice the best team when 10% ish is not available...McEwen could replace LE and it would be a wash ...plus Luongo right?    This year we have an opportunity we won’t likely have for at least two more years unless two or three young guys really step up.   No they aren’t throw aways, but expectations should also be managed.   If anything the balance of power in our division shifting away from the CALI teams should help even things out a little.   Same with Seattle coming in and ARI leaving ... 

Edited June 18, 2020 by IBatch

[Canuck Surfer]

5 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

The question arises out of the fact that we have to sign Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli, all of who are either at 30 years of age or getting very close. 

Consensus opinion is we need to sign Marky & Toffoli.

 

To which I disagree. Do admit if we could trade Boeser for a plumb young RHD. The asset management equation in a perfect world? And sign Marky & Toffu to sweetheart deals it would be great.  But it is a lot of unlikely parts to expect come together. Its not that I totally disagree.  Its a dreamers dream!

 

And an equation burdened significantly by the cap confusion called Covid. I think you raise a good question. I don't believe also in the much bandied trade of Boeser for Dumba. We get Dumba for 2 or 3 years, then he's UFA. We can have Boeser for a career. How many other young top pair RHD are out there... I have another question?

 

I am not sure signing Marky & Toffu, without a Dumba while letting Tanev bolt would do us any good? Our already porous defense would look shocking letting Tanev walk. 

 

It could signal exciting, all guns blazing. An offensive fire wagon brand of hockey. But it has been since the 80's, since a team could ignore their defense & win a cup.

 

So maybe we should think hard about letting the dust settle for a year, maybe 2?

[nux_win]

39 minutes ago, IBatch said:

For sure.  It’s more about reasonable expectations then anything.  We won’t ice as deep a team next year / cap restricted and all.  Unless a player or two breakout we can’t expect a better result then this year that’s facts.   Sure it could happen, but it’s just as lowly to go down or maybe just stay around the same.   The other thing to consider is will QHs and EP earn their paycheques.  Most likely but they don’t always do (see Bobby Ryan).   I’m not at all worried about that though - I see us taking 2 or 3 more seasons before our peak starts...and then 4-6 years of the playoffs...every year before they make the it including this year is a bonus.

We're in the playoffs right now (pretty much).  No time like the present.  Go Canucks Go!

[J.I.A.H.N]

I guess as a traditionalist, I tend to think of hockey in full seasons....

This year it was 70ish games and then a 24 list play in format

Next year to start in January and end when? How many games

So, I am wondering if it is worth signing aging players to lengthy contracts

while letting lesser ones, either not sign or walk away, while still young

Personally, I am concerned as Tryamkin, Rathbone, Stecher, and ? 

are the ones that may suffer...……….

[Ghostsof1915]

4 hours ago, Silky mitts said:

Jack rathbone we need this guy to pan out as a top four desperately 

Boeser, Miller, Petey, Toffoli. Hughes on D. Bo had 53 points at the freeze point. Jake had 36, Gaudette had 33. Even Pearson has 45 points. 

Why do we need him desperately? Are you thinking there's some crazy demand for Jake and Brock? 

What kind of output are you expecting? Minimum 40 points for a guy who hasn't played an NHL game? That's a pretty big ask. 

Not every rookie will be Petey or Huggy Bear. Does he excel on right side of defence or something? Then he would be needed desperately. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Ghostsof1915

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Consensus opinion is we need to sign Marky & Toffoli.

 

To which I disagree. Do admit if we could trade Boeser for a plumb young RHD. The asset management equation in a perfect world? And sign Marky & Toffu to sweetheart deals it would be great.  But it is a lot of unlikely parts to expect come together. Its not that I totally disagree.  Its a dreamers dream!

 

And an equation burdened significantly by the cap confusion called Covid. I think you raise a good question. I don't believe also in the much bandied trade of Boeser for Dumba. We get Dumba for 2 or 3 years, then he's UFA. We can have Boeser for a career. How many other young top pair RHD are out there... I have another question?

 

I am not sure signing Marky & Toffu, without a Dumba while letting Tanev bolt would do us any good? Our already porous defense would look shocking letting Tanev walk. 

 

It could signal exciting, all guns blazing. An offensive fire wagon brand of hockey. But it has been since the 80's, since a team could ignore their defense & win a cup.

 

So maybe we should think hard about letting the dust settle for a year, maybe 2?

What happens contract wise (term and $$$) is all going to depend on how the great and wise one in New York City decides to deal with these issues.  You know who I'm talking about......

 

I think that the addition of Toffoli was a great opportunity.  It gives the Canucks a very good top 6 that in a couple of years could be better than 2011.  

 

Having said that, I agree with you Surfer, you build from the net out and despite how tempting a Toffoli signing is, there has to be 2 higher priorities.  Marky and Tanev.  As for Tanev, I'd rather have the devil that I know ahead of a maybe like Dumba or Ristoleinen.  Let's face it, the addition of one of these players is going to cost big.  Moving out Boeser may solve an issue on D but creates one up front.  It's much simpler to keep Tanev and hope for either development from within (OJ, Rafferty or Rathbone) or some other route to help the D in the longer term.

 

I place the higher end talent ahead of lesser players who are much easier to replace.  We know our UFA / RFA list so sorry Stech, Jake, Leivo etc....  Not all are going to go but they are going to be the casualties of making the puzzle fit together

[coastal.view]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Throw aways might be a bit dramatic but even without Covid the Macro view is we won’t be able to maximize the cap until they are over.  Hard to ice the best team when 10% ish is not available...McEwen could replace LE and it would be a wash ...plus Luongo right?    This year we have an opportunity we won’t likely have for at least two more years unless two or three young guys really step up.   No they aren’t throw aways, but expectations should also be managed.   If anything the balance of power in our division shifting away from the CALI teams should help even things out a little.   Same with Seattle coming in and ARI leaving ... 

i do not understand your logic about this

every team is equally effected

the nucks are not more effected then anyone else

players must fit into the new financial regime and they will (it is a closed box financial enterprise - they have no where else to go)

this is an equal playing field for all

we just do not presently know the parameters of it

 

we cannot make specific assessments of the contract values of players we need to sign

teams with more players to re-sign may actually be in a better position then others

if the new market contract values are lower

not sure what the 10% not available comment comes from or means ? confusing to me

seems to suggest that nucks have 10% less then other teams?  that will not be the case

[Angry Goose]

If they're playing hockey at all that's good enough for me.  

 

Hughes & Tanev are great and when Myers is on his game he's a good fit too.  

 

Hughes Myers

Edler Stretcher (I think Stretcher will reward the organization's faith in him in the next few years)

 

I'm ok with that.  Then maybe bring in three new D for the bottom pairing (Breezer, Dillon, ??? Etc.)

 

Toffoli will Jerry Terry it up on the top line for a couple of years at least. Same with Markstrom.

 

The flat cap for a couple of years is so Canuck luck 

 

 

 

 

[Silky mitts]

5 hours ago, DontMessMe said:

inb4 he signs with another team

Don't even speak such evils

[Silky mitts]

2 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Boeser, Miller, Petey, Toffoli. Hughes on D. Bo had 53 points at the freeze point. Jake had 36, Gaudette had 33. Even Pearson has 45 points. 

Why do we need him desperately? Are you thinking there's some crazy demand for Jake and Brock? 

What kind of output are you expecting? Minimum 40 points for a guy who hasn't played an NHL game? That's a pretty big ask. 

Not every rookie will be Petey or Huggy Bear. Does he excel on right side of defence or something? Then he would be needed desperately. 

We need him to pan out because of our cap crunch .. Toffoli and Marky are the ones we should sign imo, which means bye bye Tanev. Rathbone the way he is trending will be a solid addition to our top 4 d corps and can really help alleviate some cap concerns coming in on an ELC. I think he is probably a year and a half away maybe two however, though it seems NCAA d usually adjust quicker to the bigs.