Benning's plan

[Ghostsof1915]

13 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

All facts here.

The the fact you hate mediocrity, and have AV as your name. A guy who can't win a Stanley Cup? 

[Law of Goalies]

16 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Are we at the bottom of the standings? Did I miss something here?

To be honest, we were quite at the bottom of the standings and signing players like Sutter, Beagle was harder compared to other teams. Also LE at that time was worth it considering his history and his play with Sedins

[theo5789]

I didn't read the majority of this thread, but I'll just say this. No one really knows what Benning's plan truly is unless you're part of his management team. From the biggest supporters to the ones that can't stand him, no one predicted we would drop all three big UFAs along with Stecher and saw us adding a top pairing dman like Schmidt for a 3rd round pick. I don't think anyone predicted the JT Miller trade. Most RFAs were signed to less than many projected. I think to some, this "unexpectedness" is a breath of fresh air, while others are annoyed because they cannot "predict" what he will do because he's not doing what they believe he "should" be doing.

 

All we do know is that Benning has a plan and we can look at the results in front of us. Under his management, we are seeing one of the most exciting teams we have seen in years and it is one of the youngest cores in the league, so we should be seeing this go for a few years. We have gotten better in such a quick time that signings are getting pushed out of the lineup because the quality is filling in.

 

We were a win away from the conference finals. Anyone that suggests that Benning's plan would see us not being "contenders" for another couple of years is being disingenuous at best. This team believes in themselves and once you hit the playoffs, you never know (the majority thought we were done when we were about to face the defending champs this year, nevermind thinking we were done after the first loss to Minni). We are still good enough to be at the very least a wildcard team and we will take advantage of every year that we have Petey, Hughes, Bo, etc taking charge and wanting to win and Benning will support this group's desire to do so, even in ways many of us haven't thought so.

 

Has Benning been perfect in every move? No, but no GM has. There will always be something to complain about because we are never going to go 82-0 and 16-0 in the playoffs, so there's no stopping that. The big picture is we continue to go in the right direction and everyone in the organization seems to be buying into the process. It's up to you to have faith and support them or jump on the bandwagon whenever you feel like it. Rome wasn't built in a day, but 6 years from what he started with to where we are now is astounding IMO (if you actually take your eyes off the microscope and actually look at the bigger picture and what other teams have done in a similar time frame).

[wildcam]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

I didn't read the majority of this thread, but I'll just say this. No one really knows what Benning's plan truly is unless you're part of his management team. From the biggest supporters to the ones that can't stand him, no one predicted we would drop all three big UFAs along with Stecher and saw us adding a top pairing dman like Schmidt for a 3rd round pick. I don't think anyone predicted the JT Miller trade. Most RFAs were signed to less than many projected. I think to some, this "unexpectedness" is a breath of fresh air, while others are annoyed because they cannot "predict" what he will do because he's not doing what they believe he "should" be doing.

 

All we do know is that Benning has a plan and we can look at the results in front of us. Under his management, we are seeing one of the most exciting teams we have seen in years and it is one of the youngest cores in the league, so we should be seeing this go for a few years. We have gotten better in such a quick time that signings are getting pushed out of the lineup because the quality is filling in.

 

We were a win away from the conference finals. Anyone that suggests that Benning's plan would see us not being "contenders" for another couple of years is being disingenuous at best. This team believes in themselves and once you hit the playoffs, you never know (the majority thought we were done when we were about to face the defending champs this year, nevermind thinking we were done after the first loss to Minni). We are still good enough to be at the very least a wildcard team and we will take advantage of every year that we have Petey, Hughes, Bo, etc taking charge and wanting to win and Benning will support this group's desire to do so, even in ways many of us haven't thought so.

 

Has Benning been perfect in every move? No, but no GM has. There will always be something to complain about because we are never going to go 82-0 and 16-0 in the playoffs, so there's no stopping that. The big picture is we continue to go in the right direction and everyone in the organization seems to be buying into the process. It's up to you to have faith and support them or jump on the bandwagon whenever you feel like it. Rome wasn't built in a day, but 6 years from what he started with to where we are now is astounding IMO (if you actually take your eyes off the microscope and actually look at the bigger picture and what other teams have done in a similar time frame).

Look when Benning took over in June 2014 his 2 prospect were Horvat and Gaunce, serious we had no real good prospects....

Just amazing how Benning and group took the team out of the dark and now making  path back to real contenders...

Sure he mades some bad signing but he need to add depth to team quick...

Young players  playing that he drafted..Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Demko, Virtanen, Gaudette, MacEwen , very close to NHL Juolevi, Rafferty, Rathbone, Podkolzin, Hoglander....Farm team, Lind, Gadjovich, Dipietro, Lockwood, Briesbois, ( Tryamkin 6'8 #5 NHL ready KHL) ...

Very good trades  and signings in last 2years, Miller, Pearson, Schmidt, Myers, Holdby, Lievo...

 

Keep on plan with hard working group that never give up and can score..So exciting to watch!!!!!

Future is very exciting moving closer to top 10...Thanks Jim Benning and group....

Edited October 21, 2020 by wildcam

[Dazzle]

4 hours ago, IBatch said:

Bingo.   I’ve analyzed the inflection and use of certain terms after and your almost certainly talking to the same guy who after one post saying he as putting you on ignore - was back right at it with duplicate accounts.    It’s the use of dumb that comes out very strong and gave it away more then anything.    Otherwise enjoying the show ha ha. 

The same people following me around belong to the same Fantasy Hockey community right here on CDC. They are parroting each other too, which is hilarious!

[AV.]

1 minute ago, wildcam said:

Look when Benning took over in June 2014 his 2 prospect were Horvat and Gaunce, serious we had no real good prospects....

Just amazing how Benning and group took the team out of the dark and now making  path back to real contenders...

Sure he mades some bad signing but he need to add depth to team quick...

Young players  playing that he drafted..Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Demko, Virtanen, Gaudette, MacEwen , very close to NHL Juolevi, Rafferty, Rathbone, Podkolzin, Hoglander....Farm team, Lind, Gadjovich, Dipietro, Lockwood, Briesbois, ( Tryamkin 6'8 #5 NHL ready) ...

Very good trades  and signings in last 2years, Miller, Pearson, Schmidt, Myers, Holdby, Lievo...

 

Future is very exciting moving closer to top 10...Thanks Jim Benning and group....

And yet guys you didn't list which were inherited from the old regime, such as Markstrom, Lack, and Hutton, all saw decent to significant time in the NHL with us.

 

Only in hindsight was Benning left with nothing or 'no real good prospects'.  At the time of Benning's hiring, he was left multiple highly-regarded prospects and pieces which included the likes of Jensen, Shinkaruk, Kassian, Cassels, Subban, Rodin, etc.  Many fans had legitimate hopes for these players unlike prospects we had in earlier years like White, Ellington, Gendur, where we figured it would have been a long-shot for them to be NHLers.

 

There's no question the prospect pool and development is set up better because we're starting to see more success in the mid rounds that we haven't seen really ever in the history of this team.  With that said, after 6 years of being on the job, you would HOPE that your future is looking better because most rebuilds don't typically take the better part of 6 years to reach the stage that we're at (wildcard/playoff contender).  I wouldn't say that's an amazing job at all.  I would say that's a combination of learning from mistakes far too late and getting a great deal of leniency from an owner who historically hasn't persisted with his GMs for very often if the results weren't there.

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, Alain Vigneault said:

And yet guys you didn't list which were inherited from the old regime, such as Markstrom, Lack, and Hutton, all saw decent to significant time in the NHL with us.

 

Only in hindsight was Benning left with nothing or 'no real good prospects'.  At the time of Benning's hiring, he was left multiple highly-regarded prospects and pieces which included the likes of Jensen, Shinkaruk, Kassian, Cassels, Subban, Rodin, etc.  Many fans had legitimate hopes for these players unlike prospects we had in earlier years like White, Ellington, Gendur, where we figured it would have been a long-shot for them to be NHLers.

 

There's no question the prospect pool and development is set up better because we're starting to see more success in the mid rounds that we haven't seen really ever in the history of this team.  With that said, after 6 years of being on the job, you would HOPE that your future is looking better because most rebuilds don't typically take the better part of 6 years to reach the stage that we're at (wildcard/playoff contender).  I wouldn't say that's an amazing job at all.  I would say that's a combination of learning from mistakes far too late and getting a great deal of leniency from an owner who historically hasn't persisted with his GMs for very often if the results weren't there.

Here we go again, a Gillis sympathizer trying to rewrite history.

 

He keeps perpetuating the exact same lines. Gillis had almost the same time too to rebuild a future that to look better, but it actually got worse! What does that tell you about this guy's logic? Don't know what he's smoking to think those prospects are better than what we have now. He's really reaching for straws. So inherently biased.

Edited October 21, 2020 by Dazzle

[theo5789]

39 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

And yet guys you didn't list which were inherited from the old regime, such as Markstrom, Lack, and Hutton, all saw decent to significant time in the NHL with us.

 

Only in hindsight was Benning left with nothing or 'no real good prospects'.  At the time of Benning's hiring, he was left multiple highly-regarded prospects and pieces which included the likes of Jensen, Shinkaruk, Kassian, Cassels, Subban, Rodin, etc.  Many fans had legitimate hopes for these players unlike prospects we had in earlier years like White, Ellington, Gendur, where we figured it would have been a long-shot for them to be NHLers.

 

There's no question the prospect pool and development is set up better because we're starting to see more success in the mid rounds that we haven't seen really ever in the history of this team.  With that said, after 6 years of being on the job, you would HOPE that your future is looking better because most rebuilds don't typically take the better part of 6 years to reach the stage that we're at (wildcard/playoff contender).  I wouldn't say that's an amazing job at all.  I would say that's a combination of learning from mistakes far too late and getting a great deal of leniency from an owner who historically hasn't persisted with his GMs for very often if the results weren't there.

Please give me a few examples where a rebuild took less than 6 years to get to contender status. Not saying it hasn't been done, but you're suggesting most rebuilds are done quicker. I can name you off the top of my head that Edmonton, Buffalo, Toronto, Arizona, New Jersey as quick examples that have taken much longer and haven't gotten to where we are at or just similar to where we are (nevermind the fact that most of those teams have won lottery picks which we haven't had the luxury of).

 

You also cannot ignore that it wasn't a straight 6 year rebuild. I'd argue it didn't really start until after the Sedins retired, so the actual "rebuild" part of it is shorter IMO. Like I stated earlier, Rome wasn't built in a day, no one expects a team to be turned around in a couple of years (at least shouldn't be). We are moving in the right direction and as long as we continue to do so, we will see this management continue whether you like it or not.

[AV.]

1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

Please give me a few examples where a rebuild took less than 6 years to get to contender status. Not saying it hasn't been done, but you're suggesting most rebuilds are done quicker. I can name you off the top of my head that Edmonton, Buffalo, Toronto, Arizona, New Jersey as quick examples that have taken much longer and haven't gotten to where we are at or just similar to where we are (nevermind the fact that most of those teams have won lottery picks which we haven't had the luxury of).

 

You also cannot ignore that it wasn't a straight 6 year rebuild. I'd argue it didn't really start until after the Sedins retired, so the actual "rebuild" part of it is shorter IMO. Like I stated earlier, Rome wasn't built in a day, no one expects a team to be turned around in a couple of years (at least shouldn't be). We are moving in the right direction and as long as we continue to do so, we will see this management continue whether you like it or not.

All of those teams you just listed have changed management multiple times since they decided to rebuild.  Almost like as if you don't get all the time in the world if you have nothing to show for.

 

Yes, the "true" rebuild started when we picked Pettersson and added Hughes a year later.  That doesn't change the fact that the Canucks still picked twice in top 10 (Virtanen, Juolevi) before those other two picks and could have pushed things along further had they gotten those picks right.

 

In the long-term, the team should be fine.  Nobody is really disputing that.  But right now, we're taking a step or two back because of mistakes the current management team brought on to themselves by consistently signing terrible contracts.  That's where the issue lies.

[theo5789]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

All of those teams you just listed have changed management multiple times since they decided to rebuild.  Almost like as if you don't get all the time in the world if you have nothing to show for.

 

Yes, the "true" rebuild started when we picked Pettersson and added Hughes a year later.  That doesn't change the fact that the Canucks still picked twice in top 10 (Virtanen, Juolevi) before those other two picks and could have pushed things along further had they gotten those picks right.

 

In the long-term, the team should be fine.  Nobody is really disputing that.  But right now, we're taking a step or two back because of mistakes the current management team brought on to themselves by consistently signing terrible contracts.  That's where the issue lies.

Adding a top pairing dman and a goalie with playoff experience while having legitimate prospects vying for scoring positions is a step or two back?

 

Virtanen is still a contributing player who could have a bigger role next year. Juolevi will be taking the next step this coming season hopefully. Not all top 10 picks pan out, for many teams and it's mitigated by making solid picks in the later rounds (and properly developing them) where success is less likely to occur. Not even going to go into the butterfly effect of making the "right" picks. Also the fact that the rules for the lottery had changed just as we were entering our basement level hockey which has caused us to drop the most spots of any team in the draft in the league over this span, and yet we still have a brilliant young core.

 

Eriksson was the biggest "mistake". The rest were to insulate and create competition for the prospects to let them properly develop as I've alluded to. The fact that our prospects are taking that next level is not just the quality of the picks, but how we get them to the NHL level.

 

All of those teams have changed management because of their failures. Benning continues to push this team forward and has built an exciting young core and it's a no brainer why ownership would support a GM that is doing such things. I again urge that instead of nitpicking and microscoping the little things (no pun intended), and look at the bigger picture and see that the team is progressing and has been rebuilt in relatively short order in comparison to many teams in the league (I'd argue we are on par with Colorado's rebuild whether you think a good job is being done there or not, and we are without a 1st overall in the process).

 

I will ask again though which teams have rebuilt their teams from an aged out team that was on a massive decline to where we are today (or into cup contention as per your expectations) in 6 years or less.

[KirkSave]

22 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

All of those teams you just listed have changed management multiple times since they decided to rebuild.  Almost like as if you don't get all the time in the world if you have nothing to show for.

Patience is a virtue and a little won't hurt you. We just had our best season since 2011 and our young core like Petey, Hughes and Bo all showed that they elevate their game in the playoffs. Those 3 were our most impactful players, which says a lot since they are so young. This team is on a good path. There will be highs/lows, peaks and valleys but with our young core, we are going to be a dangerous team for years to come!!

 

25 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

But right now, we're taking a step or two back because of mistakes the current management team brought on to themselves by consistently signing terrible contracts.  That's where the issue lies.

I think JB has done a fine job filling in for the departures of our UFA's. We don't know if we will be taking a step back. Wait till the season starts, see the roster then and allow for the players to determine how the season goes. They could even be better this year.

 

Pump the brakes a bit and enjoy the team we have. The present and future is extremely bright for this club!

[AV.]

5 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Adding a top pairing dman and a goalie with playoff experience while having legitimate prospects vying for scoring positions is a step or two back?

 

Virtanen is still a contributing player who could have a bigger role next year. Juolevi will be taking the next step this coming season hopefully. Not all top 10 picks pan out, for many teams and it's mitigated by making solid picks in the later rounds (and properly developing them) where success is less likely to occur. Not even going to go into the butterfly effect of making the "right" picks. Also the fact that the rules for the lottery had changed just as we were entering our basement level hockey which has caused us to drop the most spots of any team in the draft in the league over this span, and yet we still have a brilliant young core.

 

Eriksson was the biggest "mistake". The rest were to insulate and create competition for the prospects to let them properly develop as I've alluded to. The fact that our prospects are taking that next level is not just the quality of the picks, but how we get them to the NHL level.

 

All of those teams have changed management because of their failures. Benning continues to push this team forward and has built an exciting young core and it's a no brainer why ownership would support a GM that is doing such things. I again urge that instead of nitpicking and microscoping the little things (no pun intended), and look at the bigger picture and see that the team is progressing and has been rebuilt in relatively short order in comparison to many teams in the league (I'd argue we are on par with Colorado's rebuild whether you think a good job is being done there or not, and we are without a 1st overall in the process).

 

I will ask again though which teams have rebuilt their teams from an aged out team that was on a massive decline to where we are today (or into cup contention as per your expectations) in 6 years or less.

Schmidt is an upgrade on Tanev.  Schmidt by himself is not an upgrade on Tanev and Stetcher.

Holtby is not an upgrade on Markstrom.

We've yet to find a solution to replace Toffoli.  Is it Virtanen?  If it is, that's fairly grim.

 

Anybody with half a brain knew that signing players like Beagle and Roussel to long-term deals at hefty money was a mistake at the time of signing them.  If you feel like you NEED to pay big dollars AND term to secure things like leadership, grit, character, then I'm not sure what to say.  Skill, talent, point producing typically earns the money, not these intangibles.  At least not for multiple players at once.

 

There's quite a few examples.  Tampa Bay cut things down in 2008 and have been a consistent playoff team since 2014, St. Louis started to cut things down in 2006 and have been a consistent playoff team since 2012, Columbus had to re-rebuild in 2012 and by 2017, they're a consistent playoff team.  To a lesser extent, Calgary finally moved on from Iginla and their old core in 2013, and I'd say they've been a fairly good team since 2017.  They actually missed in 2018 when they probably shouldn't have but let's be real, they had no business being a playoff team in 2015 and yet, they made the second round that year.  Swap those two years as anomalies.

 

In all of those scenarios, there were still managerial changes going on.

Tampa Bay:  Feaster - Lawton - Yzerman - Brisebois

St. Louis:  Pleau/Davidson - Armstrong

Columbus:  Howson - Kekalainen

Calgary:  Feaster - Treliving

 

I've repeatedly said that the direction of the team should be fine, but I'm not out of line to say that things may take a step back over the next two years due to how much damage these overcommitments on these bottom-six players have costed us and will cost us going forward.  That's going to put Benning in hot water.

[theo5789]

2 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Schmidt is an upgrade on Tanev.  Schmidt by himself is not an upgrade on Tanev and Stetcher.

Holtby is not an upgrade on Markstrom.

We've yet to find a solution to replace Toffoli.  Is it Virtanen?  If it is, that's fairly grim.

 

Anybody with half a brain knew that signing players like Beagle and Roussel to long-term deals at hefty money was a mistake at the time of signing them.  If you feel like you NEED to pay big dollars AND term to secure things like leadership, grit, character, then I'm not sure what to say.  Skill, talent, point producing typically earns the money, not these intangibles.  At least not for multiple players at once.

 

There's quite a few examples.  Tampa Bay cut things down in 2008 and have been a consistent playoff team since 2014, St. Louis started to cut things down in 2006 and have been a consistent playoff team since 2012, Columbus had to re-rebuild in 2012 and by 2017, they're a consistent playoff team.  To a lesser extent, Calgary finally moved on from Iginla and their old core in 2013, and I'd say they've been a fairly good team since 2017.  They actually missed in 2018 when they probably shouldn't have but let's be real, they had no business being a playoff team in 2015 and yet, they made the second round that year.  Swap those two years as anomalies.

 

In all of those scenarios, there were still managerial changes going on.

Tampa Bay:  Feaster - Lawton - Yzerman - Brisebois

St. Louis:  Pleau/Davidson - Armstrong

Columbus:  Howson - Kekalainen

Calgary:  Feaster - Treliving

 

I've repeatedly said that the direction of the team should be fine, but I'm not out of line to say that things may take a step back over the next two years due to how much damage these overcommitments on these bottom-six players have costed us and will cost us going forward.  That's going to put Benning in hot water.

So your examples show teams that took 6 year to be consistent playoff teams. Well we just made the playoffs. Even if we are a wildcard team, we would still be in the playoffs (since consistent playoff seems to be the benchmark). With our core, I don't see this team stepping back which is another factor you've ignored in that there is room for growth amongst the young core still as well.

 

Just because there were managerial change there doesn't mean it's a must. I'd argue there was a shift in the plans from try to get to the playoffs with the Sedins to starting a full on rebuild during those 6 years and that's basically a "managerial change" with Benning being able to make the transition rather than looking elsewhere.

 

The off-season isn't finished and all signs point to Benning not being done yet. We will see what we add on top of Schmidt on defense, but we know that the top 4 got a significant boost.

 

Holtby isn't an upgrade on Markstrom, but he's an upgrade on Demko as backup last season and Demko is being primed to take over. I see this signing like when we added Ryan Miller to help Markstrom transition to being the starter that he was (development plan), while not tying up term to an aging goalie with recent injury issues and pretty much solving a conundrum that we would've faced when expansion hit.

 

As for Toffoli, he came in as a replacement for Boeser and wasn't much of a difference in the playoffs for us. He didn't need to be "replaced". Our offense was quite good last season and our young players are a year older and our prospects will have a big window of opportunity to step in and take over the secondary offense (Gaudette is already priming himself to try and take the spot, with Virtanen, Lind, Hoglander, Podkolzin hungry for it as well, long shot Hawryluk as well who has 7 points in 11 games most recently with Ottawa).

[AV.]

19 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

So your examples show teams that took 6 year to be consistent playoff teams. Well we just made the playoffs. Even if we are a wildcard team, we would still be in the playoffs (since consistent playoff seems to be the benchmark). With our core, I don't see this team stepping back which is another factor you've ignored in that there is room for growth amongst the young core still as well.

 

Just because there were managerial change there doesn't mean it's a must. I'd argue there was a shift in the plans from try to get to the playoffs with the Sedins to starting a full on rebuild during those 6 years and that's basically a "managerial change" with Benning being able to make the transition rather than looking elsewhere.

 

The off-season isn't finished and all signs point to Benning not being done yet. We will see what we add on top of Schmidt on defense, but we know that the top 4 got a significant boost.

 

Holtby isn't an upgrade on Markstrom, but he's an upgrade on Demko as backup last season and Demko is being primed to take over. I see this signing like when we added Ryan Miller to help Markstrom transition to being the starter that he was (development plan), while not tying up term to an aging goalie with recent injury issues and pretty much solving a conundrum that we would've faced when expansion hit.

 

As for Toffoli, he came in as a replacement for Boeser and wasn't much of a difference in the playoffs for us. He didn't need to be "replaced". Our offense was quite good last season and our young players are a year older and our prospects will have a big window of opportunity to step in and take over the secondary offense (Gaudette is already priming himself to try and take the spot, with Virtanen, Lind, Hoglander, Podkolzin hungry for it as well, long shot Hawryluk as well who has 7 points in 11 games most recently with Ottawa).

The point is that since we last played a game in the playoffs, we've downgraded on forward (even if you think Toffoli doesn't count), we haven't upgraded the total product of our defence, and goaltending has been downgraded as well.  All props to you for thinking none of this will make a difference, but I will choose to be real here and consider this a very realistic possibility that we take a step back.

 

There's still going to be more moves to be made, so things can improve, for sure.  That doesn't change what I said about this management, however.  They have, or they should have, no more room for mistakes.

Edited October 21, 2020 by Alain Vigneault

[theo5789]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

The point is that since we last played a game in the playoffs, we've downgraded on forward (even if you think Toffoli doesn't count), we haven't upgraded the total product of our defence, and goaltending has been downgraded as well.  All props to you for thinking none of this will make a difference, but I will choose to be real here and consider this a very realistic possibility that we take a step back.

 

There's still going to be more moves to be made, so things can improve, for sure.  That doesn't change what I said about this management, however.  They have, or they should have, no more room for mistakes.

We may not have added Toffoli if Boeser wasn't injured. He was more of a wash in that sense and was always a luxury add if we could fit him in next season (when we traded for him, we didn't expect a flat cap, but we had plans to keep him this the conditional 4th). We didn't have him for the majority of last season and was a relative non-factor in the playoffs and yet we were quite successful still.

 

Until we have the final picture of what the defense will be, we don't know the sum of the upgrade. It is much harder to upgrade the top 4, in which we have done, than it is to replace an undersized #6 dman, which Stecher was for us. It won't take much to improve on Tanev and Stecher by having Schmidt.

 

The goaltending could be an issue, but we solved multiple issues by having Holtby instead of Markstrom and hopefully giving the confidence to Demko will help take him to another level. Holtby is no slouch of a goalie and was arguably the 2nd best goalie on the market after Markstrom.

 

All this accomplished despite these "mistakes" hampering us. To further your previous post, Beagle is a key PKer for us that is very successful on faceoffs. Roussel distracted Reaves from taking liberties on the rest of our team for the most part. They played significant roles in our playoff success last season. It's not like they are providing no value as players. The only "mistake" I see is Eriksson and just like you want to use hindsight to realize that the prospect pool from a previous regime was a dud, the same could be used about signing a 30 goal scorer that should've gelled well with the Twins (and they did look good in the World Cup that summer). If anything, the Eriksson signing should be warning to those teams that added UFAs this summer that they may not pan out, so cannot automatically assume they would be "upgrades" either.

 

And like I said, cannot discount the fact that the young core will have another year of experience (playoffs too) which would be an internal upgrade itself. We haven't downgraded to the point where we take a step or two back.

[UKNuck96]

19 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

The point is that since we last played a game in the playoffs, we've downgraded on forward (even if you think Toffoli doesn't count), we haven't upgraded the total product of our defence, and goaltending has been downgraded as well.  All props to you for thinking none of this will make a difference, but I will choose to be real here and consider this a very realistic possibility that we take a step back.

 

There's still going to be more moves to be made, so things can improve, for sure.  That doesn't change what I said about this management, however.  They have, or they should have, no more room for mistakes.

So you are saying we have downgraded all over the shop,

 

and if we had an aging corps I would agree, however this is a young squad and they havnt all hit their peaks yet, as such there is still room to develop and grow. Some will improve, others may plateau, others may be good but not be a fit on this team and could be traded to fill out needs elsewhere in the squad, but unless we utilise them we wont get that chance. 

Building to be a contender isn't about taking each year in isolation. you need to look at the bigger picture. Sometimes you take one step back to take two steps forward. Look at the contracts and their end dates, and then look at who we have in the prospect pool. We essentially have the next two years to start finalising what this team will look like for its first window. As such bringing in players like Schmit is a start, but we also need to identify which of the prospect can make the leap. If each year we fill all the available slots in the roster with UFAs and journeymen we wont be able to get to that final development level. 

you can see with Hawryluk that its a one year deal, but there its likely to add depth and competition in camp, but if you look at the type of player he is, it looks like management have identified that while we have some good D and potential top 6 prospects we don't have a pipeline of bottom 6 players when the contract run out. Its likely he is being assessed at whether he will fit that need when the contracts start running out.  looking at it objectively you can see that they don't just want to fill the bottom 6 with plugs once the current vets contracts are up, but want to have a squad with similar aged and developed players.
 

Its going to take a season or two to get the final pieces in place and rushing now to get 'big names' will only shorted the window in the future and will have the same impact that people like you are criticising with the current bottom 6, where by we have over valued players on the roster. 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, UKNuck96 said:

So you are saying we have downgraded all over the shop,

 

and if we had an aging corps I would agree, however this is a young squad and they havnt all hit their peaks yet, as such there is still room to develop and grow. Some will improve, others may plateau, others may be good but not be a fit on this team and could be traded to fill out needs elsewhere in the squad, but unless we utilise them we wont get that chance. 

Building to be a contender isn't about taking each year in isolation. you need to look at the bigger picture. Sometimes you take one step back to take two steps forward. Look at the contracts and their end dates, and then look at who we have in the prospect pool. We essentially have the next two years to start finalising what this team will look like for its first window. As such bringing in players like Schmit is a start, but we also need to identify which of the prospect can make the leap. If each year we fill all the available slots in the roster with UFAs and journeymen we wont be able to get to that final development level. 

you can see with Hawryluk that its a one year deal, but there its likely to add depth and competition in camp, but if you look at the type of player he is, it looks like management have identified that while we have some good D and potential top 6 prospects we don't have a pipeline of bottom 6 players when the contract run out. Its likely he is being assessed at whether he will fit that need when the contracts start running out.  looking at it objectively you can see that they don't just want to fill the bottom 6 with plugs once the current vets contracts are up, but want to have a squad with similar aged and developed players.
 

Its going to take a season or two to get the final pieces in place and rushing now to get 'big names' will only shorted the window in the future and will have the same impact that people like you are criticising with the current bottom 6, where by we have over valued players on the roster. 

I'm not arguing that the bigger picture is in jeopardy.  I never have.  I'm saying that the setbacks we face are because of completely avoidable mistakes this management made, and given that, there will (or should) be consequences that this management team should have to answer to.  Where we could have comfortably started settling into becoming a legit playoff contender, we are now facing a big uncertainty over when we become a consistent playoff team in our timeline because we have had to cut off key core and complementary players this year and will have to do so with more pieces next year (barring any moves to get rid of Ferland/Eriksson/Beagle/Myers/Roussel/Sutter).

[UKNuck96]

3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I'm not arguing that the bigger picture is in jeopardy.  I never have.  I'm saying that the setbacks we face are because of completely avoidable mistakes this management made, and given that, there will (or should) be consequences that this management team should have to answer to.  Where we could have comfortably started settling into becoming a legit playoff contender, we are now facing a big uncertainty over when we become a consistent playoff team in our timeline because we have had to cut off key core and complementary players this year and will have to do so with more pieces next year (barring any moves to get rid of Ferland/Eriksson/Beagle/Myers/Roussel/Sutter).

What are the mistakes?

 

Beagle deffo isn't one

sutter when healthy isn't one 

 

yes they are over paid but at the time we signed them its the only way you get those types of players. All the aging contracts run out next season and the one after - you can see that the play would have been to jettison them at that point, because that's when Petterson and Hughes and that crop of youngsters would likely come of age. However it turns out they were better than expected which is why we are in the current situation.

 

Toff was a boesser replacement when he went down, and while its an expensive price to pay for what we got, you cannot blame management for his injury in the playoff, nor that there was a pandemic which caused a flat cap. 

 

This off season if it wasn't for the flat cap there probably would have been space to sign him as well. but then if you also want to get into hypotheticals - if there wasn't a pandemic we were sliding backwards out of the playoff race and may not have made it, or if we did we would have been seriously depleted with the injuries we had at that time. 

 

So its a bit of both - covid gave us chance to see a relatively healthy squad go  into the playoffs and do well, but it also meant that the squad we took in which was over cap would not be able to return due to the flat cap. 

 

Saying if we didn't sign the bottom 6 we would have been contenders is a bit disingenuous as players like Sutter and Beagle (beagle especially) let players like Horvat focus on offensive duties and not just on the D zone draws. When Gaudette is at 3C he gets sheltered which means Horvat gets more D zone duties that when its Sutter in that role, and that directly impacts his offensive play.

 

Saying we could now be contenders is using the logic that because we over achieved we should have not signed the players which  helped us over achieve in order to achieve? Go back on this forum to this time last year and most of the people would not have expected the team to do as well as it did. Its great that they did but its not something that was expected by the fans or the management. 

[AV.]

9 minutes ago, UKNuck96 said:

What are the mistakes?

 

Beagle deffo isn't one

sutter when healthy isn't one 

 

yes they are over paid but at the time we signed them its the only way you get those types of players. All the aging contracts run out next season and the one after - you can see that the play would have been to jettison them at that point, because that's when Petterson and Hughes and that crop of youngsters would likely come of age. However it turns out they were better than expected which is why we are in the current situation.

 

Toff was a boesser replacement when he went down, and while its an expensive price to pay for what we got, you cannot blame management for his injury in the playoff, nor that there was a pandemic which caused a flat cap. 

 

This off season if it wasn't for the flat cap there probably would have been space to sign him as well. but then if you also want to get into hypotheticals - if there wasn't a pandemic we were sliding backwards out of the playoff race and may not have made it, or if we did we would have been seriously depleted with the injuries we had at that time. 

 

So its a bit of both - covid gave us chance to see a relatively healthy squad go  into the playoffs and do well, but it also meant that the squad we took in which was over cap would not be able to return due to the flat cap. 

 

Saying if we didn't sign the bottom 6 we would have been contenders is a bit disingenuous as players like Sutter and Beagle (beagle especially) let players like Horvat focus on offensive duties and not just on the D zone draws. When Gaudette is at 3C he gets sheltered which means Horvat gets more D zone duties that when its Sutter in that role, and that directly impacts his offensive play.

 

Saying we could now be contenders is using the logic that because we over achieved we should have not signed the players which  helped us over achieve in order to achieve? Go back on this forum to this time last year and most of the people would not have expected the team to do as well as it did. Its great that they did but its not something that was expected by the fans or the management. 

If you honestly don't think you can find guys like Beagle and Sutter for a fraction of the price, then that's on you.  Every year, teams find these guys all the time.  It's not a myth that when you're bad, you may have to overpay but it is ENTIRELY a myth that quality bottom-six players don't exist at a large volume.

[coolboarder]

15 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Whether it's a 500K overpayment for one guy, 1M for another, etc. it all adds up.  I don't think any of these guys are bad players, they're just obviously not worth the price and term altogether, even if you do think character/leadership/grit should be compensated.  As much as getting deals over the line are important, being patient and having the discipline to walk away when you're getting into dangerous territory is also part of the job.

 

It could be learning.  Although, he knows there will be outrage if there are issues with getting Pettersson/Hughes/Demko signed next year.  There's definitely a level of pragmatism going on.

 

All things considered, the responses in free-agency have been okay.  Getting into this mess in the first place is where the issues lie.

That is the name of the price when you are trying to rebuild.  You do not want to give your draft picks prospects to be thrown to the wolves too early or it is ruined.  When you are on the bottom, you have zero leverage so what you do is to sacrifice some of the cap and short-term contract for higher salary to entice them to come here and do a role, be a mentor to the young guys and be an example on what it takes to be a pro.  This is a good strategy for the where the team were last two off-season. 

 

What you would do is to give your prospect time to develop their game in the minors while you are rebuilding and giving them a taste of what it's like to make the team by outperforming the guys.  Gaudette made the team when he was expected to be in the minors to develop.  That is how you develop by outshining the veterans and makes the decision that it is in their best interest to develop Gaudette in the NHL and keeping their word.   The prospects see this and will be very determined to make the team out of the training camp, rather than call up.   This is the type of players you keep and Benning will find some room for them.

 

Perhaps, during the summer training camp before the playoffs, Benning like what he saw out from the camp and choose not to use them for the postseason so this is the "making room for them" type of free agency by not signing knowing that some of them are ready to make the team and do not want to add up to their cap structures for the sake of signing free agents. If there was a regular training camp, I would bet you that they would make the team and waive the veterans.  With this type of moves, I suspect that Benning liked what he saw out there in the training camp and felt that off-season moves might not be necessary. He is banking on this for next season and prove the pundits wrong.