Benning's plan

[Xanlet]

This may be a hot take, but there is no way they should sign Pettersson to more then $8m per. If you look at teams that win, like Pit, they have players sign way below market rate so they can load up on superstars. In Crosby's first 2 seasons, he put up 102 points and then 120 points. Pettersson is currently sitting at 2 seasons of 66 points each (yes, they were shortened seasons, but still less than point per game). If Crosby settled for $8.7m, Petey should settle for less than $8m.

[Bure2Win]

It would be interesting to see where this team would be now it was still under Trevor Lindens guidance?

Edited October 21, 2020 by Bure2Win

[Coconuts]

3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Lol.  "Benning's plan"

 

Bold of you to assume he might be here past this season. People need to realize that with the success in this last past season and the moves he made to trade picks for talent (Toffoli, now Schmidt), the bar has been raised and its now 2nd round and beyond or bust going forward.  Maybe he can gets an additional year but then that just means that Green's going to be the fall-guy.  How many coaches does a GM get to oversee before the fingers finally turn to him?  Not many I'd imagine.

 

This will be an important year for Benning.  No more leeway, no more screwups, just big plays and big moves. 

 

Let's see if he has it in his locker...

I don't see why he wouldn't be? No, we haven't made many moves this offseason but there's lots of time left and the moves he has made seem to have been well received thus far. Not universally, but that'll rarely ever happen in this market. 

 

I don't imagine he's hit the point where it's make the second round or you're out, he'd really have to &^@# up. But the goal is undoubtedly making the playoffs again. Perhaps if he were to miss the playoffs in consecutive years he'd be shown the door, but ownership seems to be on board with his vision thus far. Won't this coming season be the first year of his extension? He's signed through 2022-23.

 

I really don't see things being as precarious for him as you seem to think they'll be. But yeah, it'll be an important year. 

[AV.]

45 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

The only fool is you for believing that report lol. Why would a player choose 3.75 over 5, especially when the Canucks (at the time) didn't have a defenceman? Of course the report wasn't true. 3.75 was the best offer he could get.

 

Why did Myers command 6M and Barrie 3.75? Demand.

After eating the amount of mud you did in the Nordstrom thread, nobody should owe you any explanation for these things ever again.  Consider this a gift because you and some other peeps could learn a thing or two, and you're seemingly a glutton for attention and humiliation.

 

1.  The reality of a flat cap and an expansion draft looming means that teams are more hesitant to commit big money and big term.

2.  GMs, especially the GMs that love certain players, will pay big money to secure the players they love, regardless if the market dictates otherwise.  Consider that Sergei Bobrovsky had just two destinations to go to:  Columbus and Florida.  He wasn't going to return to Columbus so really it was just Florida.  Dale Tallon, a noted admirer of Bobrovsky, handed him 70M over 7 years when he was the only true bidder in that auction.  Flash-forward a year, multiple teams are in for Markstrom, and he only bags 36M over 6 years. 

 

Why did Bobrovsky command more than Markstrom?  Demand?  No.

 

Myers got 6M because Benning loves the player, not because of the demand.  Winnipeg fans couldn't wait until Myers left because he was that overpaid at 5.5M for them.  There may have been teams interested in Myers but I will speculate with my life that they did not offer anything close to the 6M he got.

 

Benning in the past has tried to trade for Barrie.  He chased him relentlessly at many points during his tenure and nearly landed him at the 2019 draft.  In short, he loves the player.  I don't doubt for one moment he offered 5M+ for that reason.  Like I said, Barrie is a sucker for not taking that 5M guaranteed if that report is true  The only explanation I can give is that he looked at the prospect of playing PP1 with McDavid and saw many points and many dollar signs as a result.  That same opportunity would not have been given to Barrie in Vancouver because Hughes already has that PP1 spot.

 

Don't bother tagging me, quoting me, mentioning me.  I won't be discussing this or anything else with you as you will be promptly placed on the ignore list.

 

Learn the game of puck and maybe I'll reconsider 

[CaptKirk888]

3 hours ago, DSVII said:

That's very bold of you to assume either Petey or Hughes will settle for $8.5mil x 7 years.

 

The part that terrifies me is quality UFAs. Benning has missed more than hit with these. I think Miller and Vrbata were his best ones still, but everything since then has been meh to horrible. 

I don't think Myers is that meh. Maybe too much money and term.

[CaptKirk888]

2 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

"No bad UFA signings"

 

Yeah, because he had no flipping cap-space to make signings in the first place.  And even then, he almost signed Tyson Barrie to north of 5M dollars.

 

He's done the bare minimum to make this an "acceptable" off-season.

Source or it didn't happen.

[10pavelbure96]

52 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

This may be a hot take, but there is no way they should sign Pettersson to more then $8m per. If you look at teams that win, like Pit, they have players sign way below market rate so they can load up on superstars. In Crosby's first 2 seasons, he put up 102 points and then 120 points. Pettersson is currently sitting at 2 seasons of 66 points each (yes, they were shortened seasons, but still less than point per game). If Crosby settled for $8.7m, Petey should settle for less than $8m.

The cap has also gone up a lot since then. I'm pretty sure Crosby was the highest paid player in the league at that time.

 

 

Hughes and peteys agents are going to be comparing to recent contracts like mcdavid draisaitl marner Matthew's etc

Edited October 21, 2020 by 10pavelbure96

[BM24]

53 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

This may be a hot take, but there is no way they should sign Pettersson to more then $8m per. If you look at teams that win, like Pit, they have players sign way below market rate so they can load up on superstars. In Crosby's first 2 seasons, he put up 102 points and then 120 points. Pettersson is currently sitting at 2 seasons of 66 points each (yes, they were shortened seasons, but still less than point per game). If Crosby settled for $8.7m, Petey should settle for less than $8m.

Some of the worst logic I’ve ever seen.

[Dazzle]

27 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

After eating the amount of mud you did in the Nordstrom thread, nobody should owe you any explanation for these things ever again.  Consider this a gift because you and some other peeps could learn a thing or two, and you're seemingly a glutton for attention and humiliation.

 

1.  The reality of a flat cap and an expansion draft looming means that teams are more hesitant to commit big money and big term.

2.  GMs, especially the GMs that love certain players, will pay big money to secure the players they love, regardless if the market dictates otherwise.  Consider that Sergei Bobrovsky had just two destinations to go to:  Columbus and Florida.  He wasn't going to return to Columbus so really it was just Florida.  Dale Tallon, a noted admirer of Bobrovsky, handed him 70M over 7 years when he was the only true bidder in that auction.  Flash-forward a year, multiple teams are in for Markstrom, and he only bags 36M over 6 years. 

 

Why did Bobrovsky command more than Markstrom?  Demand?  No.

 

Myers got 6M because Benning loves the player, not because of the demand.  Winnipeg fans couldn't wait until Myers left because he was that overpaid at 5.5M for them.  There may have been teams interested in Myers but I will speculate with my life that they did not offer anything close to the 6M he got.

 

Benning in the past has tried to trade for Barrie.  He chased him relentlessly at many points during his tenure and nearly landed him at the 2019 draft.  In short, he loves the player.  I don't doubt for one moment he offered 5M+ for that reason.  Like I said, Barrie is a sucker for not taking that 5M guaranteed if that report is true  The only explanation I can give is that he looked at the prospect of playing PP1 with McDavid and saw many points and many dollar signs as a result.  That same opportunity would not have been given to Barrie in Vancouver because Hughes already has that PP1 spot.

 

Don't bother tagging me, quoting me, mentioning me.  I won't be discussing this or anything else with you as you will be promptly placed on the ignore list.

 

Learn the game of puck and maybe I'll reconsider 

LOL, I'm flattered that you are ignoring me. At no point did you ever make a logical point whenever there was an opportunity. All you've done was push a narrative that you yourself could not defend.

 

According to you, Myers got 6M because of Benning, but Benning apparently loved Barrie so much that he was going to offer 5M. Why did Myers sign with the Canucks for 6M, and Barrie signed for 3.75?

 

Tanev was gone, and the Canucks could have used Barrie. You're telling me a player left money (lol) in a flat cap era, which you yourself said was "foolish". These players make so much more money than you and I - they are no fools.

 

Give your head a shake. You are so biased that a discussion wasn't truly going to happen with you.

Edited October 21, 2020 by Dazzle

[Bad_BOI_pete]

2 hours ago, ken kaniff said:

I find it funny how many people defend JB as if he's not the one that signed those contracts that are handcuffing our team now. They were bad contracts when they were signed and they're bad now.

and we also made the second round playoffs, he had a plan you must realize that. i dont think there's any issues if the cap raises. You cant punish jim for not expecting a flat cap, when everyone was predicting it to raise. Many GMS are in the same or worse situation then us cap wise.

 

i can argue that not going after these "bad" contracts would likely have made us a less competitive team. obviously, each year our goal was to make the playoffs. To me getting to the second round was a success.

 

you do not get to choose your free agents, it is a process. there are many factors in play that influence a players decision. some of those factors are detriments to the canucks, for instance: the taxes that a vancouver player pays, is significantly higher. if you dont think that is not a factor, i cant help you

[BM24]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

The only fool is you for believing that report lol. Why would a player choose 3.75 over 5, especially when the Canucks (at the time) didn't have a defenceman? Of course the report wasn't true. 3.75 was the best offer he could get.

 

Why did Myers command 6M and Barrie 3.75? Demand.

Why would a players decision be strictly dependant on money? There is far more opportunity for Barrie in Edmonton therefore helping his longtime value and that itself is more enticing than a measly 1.25M. 
 

Barrie in Vancouver could hurt his value and net him, let’s say, 4-5M per. 
 

Barrie in Edmonton could help his value and net him 6-7M per long term. 
 

Just because a player took a deal for X amount, doesn’t mean Z amount wasn’t on the table. In fact, it probably was but the opportunities with caphit X far outweighed the ones he would’ve had at caphit Z. 
 

Need anything else I can walk you through? I have spare time. 

[DrJockitch]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

The only fool is you for believing that report lol. Why would a player choose 3.75 over 5, especially when the Canucks (at the time) didn't have a defenceman? Of course the report wasn't true. 3.75 was the best offer he could get.

 

Why did Myers command 6M and Barrie 3.75? Demand.

Because in Vancouver he is not on the 1st powerplay, he is always going to be behind Hughes.

He had a bad year last year and not very many teams had money. 

Next year a lot more teams have money.

He is hoping to pile up the points with McDavid and Drais and cash in next year when teams have more flexibility.

[BM24]

4 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

and we also made the second round playoffs, he had a plan you must realize that. i dont think there's any issues if the cap raises. You cant punish jim for not expecting a flat cap, when everyone was predicting it to raise. Many GMS are in the same or worse situation then us cap wise.

 

i can argue that not going after these "bad" contracts would likely have made us a less competitive team. obviously, each year our goal was to make the playoffs. To me getting to the second round was a success.

 

you do not get to choose your free agents, it is a process. there are many factors in play that influence a players decision. some of those factors are detriments to the canucks, for instance: the taxes that a vancouver player pays, is significantly higher. if you dont think that is not a factor, i cant help you

Since when? I wasn’t aware Gary Bettman signed these contracts for Benning. When did that become a thing? 
 

Sometimes the best move, is no move at all. Too bad Benning thinks the opposite. 

[10pavelbure96]

1 minute ago, BM24 said:

Since when? I wasn’t aware Gary Bettman signed these contracts for Benning. When did that become a thing? 
 

Sometimes the best move, is no move at all. Too bad Benning thinks the opposite. 

Hes right... you dont.

 

The players choose where they want to go lol

[BM24]

Just now, 10pavelbure96 said:

Hes right... you dont.

 

The players choose where they want to go lol

Overpaying is a great way to make it no choice at all. 

[coolboarder]

2 hours ago, ken kaniff said:

I find it funny how many people defend JB as if he's not the one that signed those contracts that are handcuffing our team now. They were bad contracts when they were signed and they're bad now.

This is still not a bad contracts now for one reason, it was needed to fill holes to give his prospects some time to develop in the minors and it's necessary evil.  This is how you rebuild your team for as long as you time it perfectly, for example, Sutter/Edler contract runs out on the same year Petterson's ELC expires.   Nobody expected the Canucks to make the playoffs last season so everybody agreed that it would take about 2 years and if we make the playoffs, it's a bonus. 

 

There is a reason why Benning protected his lottery draft for Miller's trade because he is gambling that the team would get better within 2 years if not for that Covid-19 would come and infected the world and he was expected to sign Toffoli when the cap goes up and it is not up and it's flat for two years.  Let's say that it is a perfect timing to write the season off for this upcoming season with no fans and Aquaman might figure that he is not going to make money so he let Benning cut those ties and allow for one-season of growing pain with better chance of winning a lottery picks.  We made the playoffs and it's a bonus of making the playoffs and defence is no worse than Tanev to Calgary with a great trade that is necessary.  Timing is everything. 

 

We are not expected to make any noise for next season as it's expected to be a shorten season due to Covid-19 and I'm sure that Benning has taken a look at a potential all-Canadian division and they are all better than Canucks and perhaps has let the owner know that we are not going to make a playoff spot and the owner agreed based as the way they played in the playoffs against the cup contender and they are not even ready.  Benning is giving his prospect a shot and if they all step up, Benning will be seen a genius and Aquaman will gladly give Benning a tenure for this team for a long time.  Benning is gambling on his prospects and feels confidence with his moves so far this off-season with lack of big-time UFA signing.

[Dazzle]

20 minutes ago, BM24 said:

Why would a players decision be strictly dependant on money? There is far more opportunity for Barrie in Edmonton therefore helping his longtime value and that itself is more enticing than a measly 1.25M. 
 

Barrie in Vancouver could hurt his value and net him, let’s say, 4-5M per. 
 

Barrie in Edmonton could help his value and net him 6-7M per long term. 
 

Just because a player took a deal for X amount, doesn’t mean Z amount wasn’t on the table. In fact, it probably was but the opportunities with caphit X far outweighed the ones he would’ve had at caphit Z. 
 

Need anything else I can walk you through? I have spare time. 

Assuming that it's a 1 year, prove it deal, why would he take less given that he will be expected to play like he did in Toronto, where he WAS exposed? This does not take into account that this so-called opportunity actually could sink his value.

 

Perhaps he didn't want to play in Vancouver, and purposefully took less not to play there. It's possible. Yet this doesn't explain @Alain Vigneault 's logic that Myers could not have any bidders except Vancouver. (His narrative was Benning was a moron for signing him at 6M, AND that Myers didn't take a discount deal, even though speculation suggested he'd go for 7-8M).

 

No thanks, I don't need help from some guy I've never even seen on the forum try to talk down on me. Never even had an interaction until now, and it's hilarious that Alain Vigneault already seems to have followed you around. Multiple accounts?

 

Regardless, it's pretty obvious who's following whom. The same bunch of people following each other around. Hmm....

Edited October 21, 2020 by Dazzle

[Bad_BOI_pete]

7 minutes ago, BM24 said:

Since when? I wasn’t aware Gary Bettman signed these contracts for Benning. When did that become a thing? 
 

Sometimes the best move, is no move at all. Too bad Benning thinks the opposite. 

would it be such a reach for you to understand that we were trying to make the playoffs? you understand this a buisness right? wins bring people to the stands, which= real money in the owners pocket. having a terrible season will affect ticket prices, season ticket renewal, attendance and concession revenue. for some owners tanking is not an option.

 

and yes you do not choose your free agents, it is way more complicated than that. im guessing that your on plan 10 after a few short days. you bid on whats available and usually have to give in to the players demand. this is not be a gm mode, so many factors.

[AV.]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

I don't see why he wouldn't be? No, we haven't made many moves this offseason but there's lots of time left and the moves he has made seem to have been well received thus far. Not universally, but that'll rarely ever happen in this market. 

 

I don't imagine he's hit the point where it's make the second round or you're out, he'd really have to &^@# up. But the goal is undoubtedly making the playoffs again. Perhaps if he were to miss the playoffs in consecutive years he'd be shown the door, but ownership seems to be on board with his vision thus far. Won't this coming season be the first year of his extension? He's signed through 2022-23.

 

I really don't see things being as precarious for him as you seem to think they'll be. But yeah, it'll be an important year. 

Didn't get around to this previously, apologies.

 

Right now, the team is currently going into the season with worse goaltending, less depth on defence, and a weaker forward group than the one that played in the playoffs.  The additions of Holtby, Hawlyuk, and Schmidt are good but only Schmidt is an upgrade since he's replacing Tanev.  The problems lie in retention of our core pieces.  Pettersson/Hughes/Demko are all due for money.  This means that the team will be getting gutted even further than this off-season since Pearson and Edler's money will be going to that.

 

This isn't really a one-off situation developing here where after this season concludes, normalcy will resume.  As it stands, there needs to be A LOT of movement of salary in the team to ensure we sign our guys AND find adequate replacements for the complementary pieces we'll be losing.  We have some good pieces internally like Podkolzin, Hoglander, maybe Lind, but throwing rookies into a mix will still pose its risks.

 

I hope I'm wrong but this may be a 2-3 season setback.  I wish Jim the best but with 6 years into the job, there's only so many mistakes one can make before time's up.

[J.I.A.H.N]

Here is where I think Benning failed.........................

 

1. One for me, is not recognizing what he was going to do with Markstrom and Tanev. IMO, way too much importance was given to winning this season, as just about everyone and their son has said that the Canucks will take a step back this next season. This was a known thing because of the cap crunch. (Even before Covid we knew we would have trouble meeting our cap. Therefore, it was foolish to take the run at the playoffs at the expense of the future.

 

This is why Markstrom and Tanev should been traded, last TDL, as the assets coming back would have set us up for the future.

 

2. "IF" you are trading major assets for Toffoli, he should have had a retention place for Toffoli.........Benning did not have that worked out. But again, as much as I like Toffoli, we should never had acquired him, as we should have not been going for the playoffs. These last 2 years, should have been the conclusion of the rebuild. 

 

3. The 3rd reason Benning failed was  really not having a grasp of how cap can work for you. Meaning Benning should have recognized Tampa's delemma and planned to exploit it. Note* Spending to the cap should recommended if, the asset is worth it..............Not many teams have $3 million dollar players on their 3rd and 4th lines. And I love Beagle!

But again, this really hurt our positioning for taking Cap trades.

 

4thly......Baertschi...................it mystifies me how Benning could not have known Baertschi was not well liked by Green or that he was being sent down. To me, I think he could have been moved the season before, even if it was for peanuts or a small +. But after being cut. GM's wondered why Baertschi could not make a club that needed wingers. I simply think Benning's ask was too big and he priced himself out of the small market he had.

 

Conclusion: Benning's failure is in his failure to sign players at market value, and  thereby controlling his cap. His secondary failure was jumping out of his rebuild too early. Because really, when you look at it, our secondary prospects after Pettersson and Hughes, were not ready to graduate yet, thereby not having the ELC's to supplement his stars.