Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Benning's plan

Rate this topic


tan

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

so you agree, sometimes you have to overpay. do you think we were a attractive market these past few years? all Free agents knew that they were going to have to compete with our depth chart. all FA knew they had to pay more in tax. most analists had us near the bottom of the standings, most FA want to win.

 

jim was in a tough spot, he probably knew he was overpaying for certain contracts. ownership probably had a goal to reach playoffs every year. you dont sign free agents under bidding other teams. if Jim didnt sign anyone he would have been fired along time ago.

Then that is on Aqualini and he needed to be sat down and told the truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, janisahockeynut said:

I am half and half on that............

 

Aka.............Hughes, Pettersson and Stecher were immediate

Juolevi could not due to injuries

 

But I would like to have seen more of Chatfield, Brisebois and Sautner

But see, I think that's where the problem lies. We seem to either get a prospect immediately up and skipping the AHL altogether or they don't make it despite some giving some really strong indications of what they could be when they are called up once in a blue moon. lol

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, janisahockeynut said:

Well, IMO

I thin AP gave Vegas the "You got 24 hors, or I am signing with someone else"

and Vancouver was the only one that said deal, when the phone rang.

I think all the other may have asked for time............

Possibly, but couldn't they sign AP while they still had Schmidt, and move Schmidt after the AP signing? There is a certain time frame that these things can occur, yes? 

 

I'm also just a bit skeptical that if Vegas called up one of the cap bottom teams and offered Schmidt for a pick that they wouldn't say yes. Would Benning have tried to close the deal for a 4th and risk losing Schmidt?

 

                                                    regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BM24 said:

Some of the worst logic I’ve ever seen.

How so? Pettersson, while a great player, has lower stats than Crosby. Therefore, if you want the team to win, he should accordingly have a lower cap hit than Crosby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gollumpus said:

Possibly, but couldn't they sign AP while they still had Schmidt, and move Schmidt after the AP signing? There is a certain time frame that these things can occur, yes? 

 

I'm also just a bit skeptical that if Vegas called up one of the cap bottom teams and offered Schmidt for a pick that they wouldn't say yes. Would Benning have tried to close the deal for a 4th and risk losing Schmidt?

 

                                                    regards,  G.

Maybe, but look at Tampa right now....they are in a bit of a pickle

 

I am sure Vegas is in the know, of how and why GM;s around the league are letting Tampa rot

 

and I am sure they know GM's think of Vegas in the same light......

 

The trading of Schmidt was not a favor to Vancouver, it was a favor to Vegas

 

IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

1.  Nope, not short.  I just meant to articulate that even with many noted suitors, he got less money and term than Bobrovsky.  A flat cap and expansion draft obviously factored in.

 

2.  Depends on who you ask.  He had more years of experience as a starter than Markstrom.

 

I'm too lazy to find links (I know, that weakens my point) but many in the hockey circle knew that Florida was where his eye was at.  That's why they moved Bjugstad for a UFA Brassard and why Luongo (with 3 years left) suddenly had "injuries" that ended his career.  Columbus was always a possibility but once it was clear Panarin would be leaving, that killed any chance for Bobrovsky staying.

Well, just to pester the point:

 

1.) Why would the draft be a factor here? The Flames would not really want to expose Markstrom in the draft. The flat cap (to my mind) resulted in a deal which seems appropriate for Markstrom's results.

 

2.) what you say here argues against your position, yes?

 

                                                          regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Then that is on Aqualini and he needed to be sat down and told the truth

when was the last time you sat your boss down and told him you cant meet his expectations, and still expect to keep your job. i guarntee you benning is doing a great job for his boss, us pitily fans are not even considred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Maybe, but look at Tampa right now....they are in a bit of a pickle

 

I am sure Vegas is in the know, of how and why GM;s around the league are letting Tampa rot

 

and I am sure they know GM's think of Vegas in the same light......

 

The trading of Schmidt was not a favor to Vancouver, it was a favor to Vegas

 

IMHO

Could be. Which suggests to me that there is still something that is going to happen between these two teams at some point in the future... or not.  :)

 

                                                              regards,  G.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

How so? Pettersson, while a great player, has lower stats than Crosby. Therefore, if you want the team to win, he should accordingly have a lower cap hit than Crosby

I do get what you mean and I agree

But

Crosbys contract was signed in 2013/2014

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

when was the last time you sat your boss down and told him you cant meet his expectations, and still expect to keep your job. i guarntee you benning is doing a great job for his boss, us pitily fans are not even considred.

Well Petey

I am retired

But I can honestly say

I told my boss the truth every time we talked

Every time!

He did not always like the truth

But he respected me and always asked my opinion

Something to think about

 

 

Edited by janisahockeynut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

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.

Hmm, I agree that Schmidt is an upgrade on Tanev but perhaps the combo of Demko and Holtby may surprise? I was hoping we'd land Holtby, I know his numbers haven't been as great the last couple seasons but I figure Ian Clark can help him rework his game a bit. I recall someone mentioning that when Trotz left he took Washington's goalie coach with him, perhaps there's something to that? I don't imagine they'd bring him in without consulting Clark, who we have in Holtby is up in the air til we're actually playing games. I'd imagine Demko continues to progress, but what the ends up looking like is hard to say. 

 

Pettersson, Hughes, and Demko will all need to be paid next offseason. But perhaps with the cap being stagnant they're given bridge deals to ride out some of our cap complications? As of right now we have roughy 20m coming off the books next offseason in Pearson, Sutter, Baer, Edler, and Spooner. But Petey, Gaudette, Hughes, Demko, and potentially Jake will need deals. One can assume Edler also comes back at a cheaper rate, but yeah that's a crunch. One would hope that one of our prospects could step in for Benn at that point. A Sutter replacement could probably be had for less, and Pearson will be 30 and we should probably be looking to replace him anyway depending on his production. Bridge deals for Petey and Hughes definitely make sense for the sake of team depth. 

 

The offseason after we have roughly another 20m coming off in Eriksson, Beagle, Rouss, Motte, Holtby, and Luongo. I'll assume Edler has a one year deal expiring as well. You've got to replace bodies, but the only big fish that offseason to re-up is Boeser and they'd likely retain Motte. Rathbone and Mac are also worth mentioning as rfa's. The deals of Horvat, Miller, and Ferland expire the following season. 

 

Lots of question marks for sure, but if we can get through next offseason we should have a bit of flex going forward? Finding a way to move Loui out this offseason or next would go a long way to making cap easier to juggle. Moving him with one year left vs two shouldn't be as a painful or expensive. Having some of our rookies step in and play at respectable levels would be huge.

 

One thing to consider though is that a number of other teams will likely be experiencing similar cap crunches, particularly if teams set internal caps and don't spend to the cap. This could potentially be a mitigating factor. If we take a step back next season or the season after due to cap reasons I don't imagine we'd be the only team doing so. There's not really much margin for error with larger contracts or term, which is why I'm glad we've stayed away from both thus far this offseason. Wouldn't be surprised to see next offseason be approached in a similar manner. 

Edited by Coconuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Maybe, but look at Tampa right now....they are in a bit of a pickle

 

I am sure Vegas is in the know, of how and why GM;s around the league are letting Tampa rot

 

and I am sure they know GM's think of Vegas in the same light......

 

The trading of Schmidt was not a favor to Vancouver, it was a favor to Vegas

 

IMHO

hard disagree, most analysts would disagree, most fans would disagree. we are a better team because of that trade.

 

the difference between vegas and tampa is much different. vegas was over the cap by 10% that means they must act within 24 hours or suffer penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, janisahockeynut said:

I do get what you mean and I agree

But

Crosbys contract was signed in 2013/2014

That's fair, but the result is the same. The Canucks could potentially compete directly against the Penguins for the cup, and the Penguins would have a consistent 100 point player on the roster at the $8.7m cap hit mark, while the Canucks could have a slightly below 80 point player at the same cost. Success in the NHL is hugely dependent on value in relation to cap hit. In the scenario I've mentioned, Pettersson would be a negative factor for the Canucks in such a match up on the basis of value/cap hit.

 

Bottom line, you cannot overpay your talent, just look at Edmonton, they have undoubtedly the best forward in the game and yet routinely miss the playoffs or get eliminated in the first round, largely due to the whopping $12.5m cap hit he brings. Could you imagine if they had cost controlled him the way they did with Draisaitl? They'd have an extra $4m cap they could spend on defense or goal tending.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

Well, just to pester the point:

 

1.) Why would the draft be a factor here? The Flames would not really want to expose Markstrom in the draft. The flat cap (to my mind) resulted in a deal which seems appropriate for Markstrom's results.

 

2.) what you say here argues against your position, yes?

 

                                                          regards,  G.

1.  For Calgary?  Don't think it mattered to them because the gave term and money to Tanev.  But maybe they would have offered more term and money to other free-agents had things not been altered.

 

With that said, for the league as a whole, it was a consideration.

 

2.  Yes, that's why I posted that as a possible reason for why he may have gotten more.  We'll never know because the signings happened in different years with different teams needing goalies at those times.

 

One team (Florida) actively moved salary out and encouraged their starter to retire in efforts to bring in this guy.  They had no intention of leaving July 1st without Bobrovsky and were going to pay him no matter what.

 

The other team (Calgary) simply made their pitch and won out.  They may have had him as a long-term target but they certainly didn't do anything pre-FA to ensure that he would be their guy.  The opportunity came, they seized it.

Edited by Alain Vigneault
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well Petey

I am retired

But I can honestly say

I told my boss the truth every time we talked

Every time!

He did not always like the truth

But he respected me and always asked my opinion

Something to think about

 

 

well we can ask trevor linden, he was fired for not sharing the bosses vision right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Maybe, but look at Tampa right now....they are in a bit of a pickle

 

I am sure Vegas is in the know, of how and why GM;s around the league are letting Tampa rot

 

and I am sure they know GM's think of Vegas in the same light......

 

The trading of Schmidt was not a favor to Vancouver, it was a favor to Vegas

 

IMHO

Vegas' move actually I'd say was questionable at best. Sure they upgraded Schmidt to Pietrangelo, but they also don't have a 2nd line center because of going after Pietrangelo. I honestly think Vegas took a step back this free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Qwags said:

Guys, you realize that Darren Dreger is the source behind the Barrie for 5M right? He's also the guy who said Myers left 7M to come to Vancouver.

Wait, so you're telling me that Myers left money on the table to come to Vancouver? Don't tell @Alain Vigneault that. His "inside sources" are going to get shot now. RIP. :frantic:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazzle said:

Wait, so you're telling me that Myers left money on the table to come to Vancouver? Don't tell @Alain Vigneault that. His "inside sources" are going to get shot now. RIP. :frantic:

:rolleyes:

I'm saying that the source of both the Barrie and Myers deals were the same insider.

 

You can't deny one without the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...