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

A realistic analysis of Jim Benning's tenure so far

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Benning inherited Sedins (2) Horvat, Tanev, Markstrom , Kasian*, Kesler*, Edler, Bieska*  and Burrows*

* all traded

The cupboard was not as bare as is suggested. To choose to set the clock at 2017 may be convenient, but to simply discount the previous 3 years is a tad disingenuous. JB has been charge for coming up to 7 years, we can't waive a magic wand and jusr cut short his years :rolleyes: By the way that's roughly the same time as Sakic and Gorton

The poster I'm quoting below is spot on in regards to the first part of your reply. The cupboard was as bare as I can remember any team having in recent years with aging, declining pieces as well as zero elite prospects (I love Bo but he was never considered a grade A prospect). As for the second part, I think it's disingenuous to bind all years of JB's tenure into a single lense or direction. I began with the 2017-2018 timeline because that's when all bets were off from the ownership about playoff runs and JB was given free reigns to rebuild the team. That's when the current trajectory of our team truly begins. It is false to conflate this current direction with the one we had in 2014-2017 when team personnel publicly used to state we were trying to be a competitive playoff team with the previous Sedins led core. 

 

2 hours ago, khay said:

Sedins had NMC.

 

JB took the time to develop Horvat and Markstrom. In particular, Markstrom was given the starting role in the AHL and provided with mentorship from Ryan Miller. Horvat was brought up the right way, starting from the fourth line and up. Along the way, he received mentorship from Richardson, Bonino, Sutter, and Henrik, rather than throwing him to the wolves.

 

Bieksa and Burrows had dwindling values -- Bieksa got us a 2nd, Burrows a prospect. Good trades by JB for couple of guys in their twilight years.

 

Despite everyone on CDC wanting to trade Edler and Tanev, JB stood tall and kept him, which was a great decision. Yes, he lost Tanev for nothing but Tanev was instrumental in Hughes development and the team playing decent hockey last season.

 

Kassian? lol are you kidding? Everyone in the NHL probably was aware of his alcohol problems. I'm glad he fought it off now but he had very little value.

 

Kesler? lol The two-team trade list Kesler?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

Baer was a good top 6 winger for Horvat before he got caucused by a dirty hit and lost a step from there. He was well worth the 3+ mil before his injury.

I can't completely blame JB on not retaining one of our UFAs cause a lot of it was unforeseen such as a flat cap and Lu's penalty that had nothing to do with him. I can definitely see us retaining Toffoli if no Covid or Lu penalty.

Yeah. I agree that the Lu penalty isn't on Benning. If it wasn't for that, I think he resigns Toffoli, and our top six would be vastly different this season. 

 

I can't wait until next season when the dead weight contracts are off the books. Whether Benning will be the GM at that time remains to be seen, of course. I think if the team misses the playoffs, he might be as good as gone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Convincing John said:

UFA’s aren’t what they were 5 years ago. This game has changed so dramatically in the last decade. By the time you become a UFA, you’re on your way down. Signing a 28 year old to a 6 year contract is kinda out of style. It’s hard to find a big UFA contract that has had value all the way till the end. If you need to shelter young players, sign your Joe Thornton and Cory Perry deals. Don’t be locking down Jay fricken Beagle. Jay fricken Beagle equivalents are available at any point in time during the season and the next few decades via trade for a super late pick or a cheap and short UFA contract. Cap space should be used as a weapon to make dumber GMs pay for their sins. Take away RFA’s they can’t fit but you can. 

Why do you think 28 year old blue chip UFAs are any different then they were even five years ago?   Stone, Patches - what bums right?  Vegas just completed their first build with AP too...sure they won't like the last couple of years of that deal, but most blue chip D's have their best years in their early 30's still, not 23-26....ask Hedman, ask Burns...Carlson ... 

 

Go back a few more years and you have Tavares and before him Stamkos.   TT types are valuable too, the league is full of them in the range he got.   
 

The only thing that's starting to happen is contracts this year due to Covid mostly, have a limited term in comparison.   Other then that - it's business as usual, paying for 27-30 year old first time UFAs to plug holes.    Myers and Schmidt are both solid acquisitions, won't see much of if any decline if their minutes are managed.  

 

Will say one trend that thankfully has sowewhat abated - thanks to Dubas, is paying third contract type money for second contracts.    Keller got paid in ARI and a few other ones come to mind so it wasn't just TO doing it,  it's a miracle the rest of the GMs have stood their ground ....  and Joe Thornton/Perry /Spezza deals are for depth and leadership only, they don't do what Beagle does. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The timeline for our prospects to be this good this fast (Pettersson, Hughes, Hoglander) was also unprecedented. Alot of our 'overpaid' contracts would be coming off the books by the time we expected the kids to flourish.

 

Building a perennial contender in this league is not an easy task, but I think we have one on the cusp. Some teams are perennial contenders because they are built well... Ex) Washington, Vegas, Tampa Bay, Colorado. But others contend for 2-4 years then teeter off. Ex) Nashville, Winnipeg, Calgary, and I even want to add St. Louis.

 

I'm a big JB fan and would hate to see him let go, just for someone else to destroy everything hes created. He understands what it takes to build a winning team. He didn't inherit this roster, he created it. Our roster has had a complete overhaul in the last 5 years from icing a terrible lineup to an absolutely lethal lineup. Yeah, we're in a cap crunch, but again, we weren't expected to be this good this fast.

 

I love what JB's done. The Twitter mongrels will always hate. Christ, this team made it to game 7 of the 2nd round six months ago! Suddenly, we lose 3 in a row and the mongrels want a new GM!.. smh. Canucks fans are the most bipolar, cataclysmic, barking dog syndrome nutjob fans across the entire NHL, but I love y'all <3.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Convincing John said:

Don’t be locking down Jay fricken Beagle. Jay fricken Beagle equivalents are available at any point in time during the season and the next few decades via trade for a super late pick or a cheap and short UFA contract. Cap space should be used as a weapon to make dumber GMs pay for their sins. Take away RFA’s they can’t fit but you can. 

Jay Beagle is worth every penny now Roussel on the other hand not so much.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, oldnews said:

I agree in general with the chaos towards the end of the Gillis tenure - and I'd add that I think the most damaging decision the franchise made - was the year of Tortorella experiment - which was not only a misfit - but set them back more than just that year...

The one thing I'd disagree with in your assessment is the idea of re-signing Toffoli - I'd have opted for Tanev instead for a few reasons - 1) prioritizing Hughes' partner, 2) retaining a high end shutdown D pairing and 3) the relative depth of the organization in youth at RW = Boeser, Hoglander, Virtanen, Podkolzin (Gaudette also potential winger conversion)..

Markstrom is probably my favorite goaltender of all-time - but signing him and losing Demko would have resulted in a scene like the recent seige of Washington - so I find it pretty comical when some folks came in here in recent weeks to claim they 'shoulda signed Markstrom'.  Very few people considered Markstrom a contender to be a legit starter through the majority of his time here.   If I can let go, anyone else here ought to be able to.  Which also makes sense from a team trajectory standpoint - their young talent are a few years away from beginning to approach their prime - Demko is that guy that fits the team's timeline (and gives them far more cap flexibility in the meantime).  Very hard to see Markstrom go - but necessary.

 

Very hard to disagree with you on this. Half of those people are also the same ones that said dump marky after demkos Vegas showing, and ridiculed those that said while that was an awesome performance don’t expect that to be the level his is at all through the season. 
 

In the age of the internet, nuance , detail, and the ability to be flexible seem to have been lost and we live in an age regardless of subject of two extremes shouting across a room at each other 

  • Sedinery 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say it again...

 

6 picks in the top 10 over a 10 year span. Even I could have done well....Sure I would have picked Glass over Petey but I would have picked Tkachuk over OJ. His top drafting is average.

 

His middle to bottom drafting is really good. No chance the average Joe could match it.

 

His trading....average. Won some, lost some. Trading is more about timing than anything and he's done well with some and poorly on others. Should have sold way more assets.

 

UFA signings....poor. Even I was against the Loui signing.

 

I feel as though the owners play a bigger role than we know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been a Benning supporter since the beginning, and I think he’s done a lot of good here, but I also wouldn’t object to letting him go either.


I get letting Markstrom walk. I would have made that move too. Schmidt, once he finds his footing a bit, will be a better defender than Tanev, and I would not want to lose Demko to Seattle. The thing is, we should have kept one of Tanev or Toffoli, and that’s the issue year. The reason why we couldn’t is largely Benning’s fault. His UFA signings have ranged from questionable to down right awful. Beagle and Sutter for example are fantastic players, but do not at all warrant the combined 7.1m pricetag. I get that the flat cap handcuffed us, but it shouldn’t have had to. Eriksson, Roussell, Sutter, and Beagle take up 16m of our cap, and that’s the problem. I think the Canucks would be significantly better if they had kept either Tanev or Toffoli, and that falls on Benning’s shoulders for his poor contracts. 

Edited by HC20.0
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Benning has been.......Oh %$#@ it,  I'm not going to write another essay on JB.

 

Basically........

 

 

Nailed it.    Can't wait for the next thread that gains some traction so everyone's ego on the idea can get a stroke or two the right or wrong way...might as well have monkeys doing it - we won't really know either way for another five years at least.    

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I Notice the Benning supporters cite his drafting and scouting skills and without proof blame ownership for his mistakes

The anti Benning cite his cap, and signings and trades

 Do we not have scouts do the scouting?

Wasn't Benning the one who said drafting is done by consensus? So why give him all the credit for that?

Wasn't it Benning who said his scouts pushed him on Petey?

Wasn't Boeser the BPA and rated at 25?

Wasn't Hughes the best defenseman available and exactly what we were hoping for - a defenseman with skill

If you look at what all the top Gm's state, the draft is left to the scouts - It is their show, they are the ones doing all the work

 

Think about what GM means, - General MANAGER - He has to Manage so many departments and make a coercive team with the same objective and managing the salary and prospect pool

For some reason he let his scouts go that were responsible for us getting our best prospects

 

If you say he's the best GM based as a scout, I don't believe that is his job and he relies on his team of scouts and checks their recommendations out occasionally to confirm

I think he could have done much better managing for sure, as he is learning on the job as his first GM job

He  has had the luxury and luck of high draft picks, with all his 2nd high round draft picks almost as high as our 1st round picks during the Sedin years (so almost 2x as many picks with 1 a top 6 each time)

 

With that luxury and a good scouting staff providing you good information, would that make all of us a good GM for picking those guys?

He is a manager, a general manager and should be based on his managing

I would rate his team (that he had) high on the higher round picks, still waiting on late round gems ( a 3rd round recently was like a 4th while being a presidents team)

I am unsure what to rate him as far as a manager

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

I agree with you that the 2014 draft, in hindsight, was a home run. I mean, when you have 5 NHL players picked from the draft, that's quite incredible, even if not all those players are playing for the organization, or in it. That's pretty incredible. Two of those players from 2014 are contributing to the team (Virtanen and Demko), and Tryamkin when he was here. I don't recall selecting many NHL players during the Gillis era with the exception of Horvat before his departure. 

 

False equivalent Gillis to Benning. Gillis had a winning team* which had more success either before or since, two Presidents cups and a game 7 in the SC final in his 6 year. He had no need to trade but even then he never signed a Ericksson type money launderer. Benning** should be so lucky. The team rebuild started in 2013 when Gillis traded Schneider to get Horvat. He traded for Markstrom and signed Tanev as a NCAA FA. Hodgson was an all star at the WJC but his back and his father messed up what should have been a great career. Many said he was better than Taveres.  

 

 

*   GILLIS

 

**  BENNING

  • 2 playoff appearances
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I Notice the Benning supporters cite his drafting and scouting skills and without proof blame ownership for his mistakes

The anti Benning cite his cap, and signings and trades

 Do we not have scouts do the scouting?

Wasn't Benning the one who said drafting is done by consensus? So why give him all the credit for that?

Wasn't it Benning who said his scouts pushed him on Petey?

Wasn't Boeser the BPA and rated at 25?

Wasn't Hughes the best defenseman available and exactly what we were hoping for - a defenseman with skill

If you look at what all the top Gm's state, the draft is left to the scouts - It is their show, they are the ones doing all the work

 

Think about what GM means, - General MANAGER - He has to Manage so many departments and make a coercive team with the same objective and managing the salary and prospect pool

For some reason he let his scouts go that were responsible for us getting our best prospects

 

If you say he's the best GM based as a scout, I don't believe that is his job and he relies on his team of scouts and checks their recommendations out occasionally to confirm

I think he could have done much better managing for sure, as he is learning on the job as his first GM job

He  has had the luxury and luck of high draft picks, with all his 2nd high round draft picks almost as high as our 1st round picks during the Sedin years (so almost 2x as many picks with 1 a top 6 each time)

 

With that luxury and a good scouting staff providing you good information, would that make all of us a good GM for picking those guys?

He is a manager, a general manager and should be based on his managing

I would rate his team (that he had) high on the higher round picks, still waiting on late round gems ( a 3rd round recently was like a 4th while being a presidents team)

I am unsure what to rate him as far as a manager

You can't label Benning supporters as just that.   Myself and others I know are Canuck supporters and understand the 31 soon to be 32 league well enough to judge him based on his peer group.   For sure he has good and bad things on both sides of the ledger, but the good now and has for a couple years now - outweigh the bad.   Given his initial mandate he went out and got the best goalie available, and the second best winger.   Some have created the idea he's accidentally rebuilt the team out of pure luck or whatever.   Having a couple decades of management experience myself - i find that comical.   Glad he hasn't laid out his plans for all to see, and happy with the results all considered.  Didn't think we'd have a hope in hell..see Detroit and master builder Ken Holland - that was my expectation.   Pretty low in other words.

 

I believe a lot of us hockey nuts aren't pro or against Benning, there is a a lot inbetween the black and white.  For me at least, he's done enough to see it through.   What's he done?   Well his drafting is beyond reproach (unless you don't understand the math behind it, and expect every first rounder to be a blue chip player and every second rounder to be like Hogs... in which case please go educate yourself - it's completely delusional) ...  his re-tool was managed well... Miller and Schmidt deals were the only ones like it for a decade or more ... better then 30 other GMs did ... Myers was a win as well - despite the idiotic viewpoint that those guys grow on trees and he's overpaid for too many years lol.  Motte.   And the cherry on top could be OJs development curve.

 

After watching this team since the late 80's (and following it since the early 80's,  not counting anything before grade 3), the only other "core" (which wasn't even a term back then) I recall having this much or more promise was Linden, Bure, McLean, Ronning and Nedved...

 

Cant say for sure we have that much yet - but for sure we have something.   The Sedins didn't offer a lot of hope at the start of their career... heck even Joe Thornton drafted a year or so before him didn't look like these guys have.   Naslund was a minor trade...Messier - like him or not - did way more for him then Sundin ever did in half a season for the Sedins (just had to throw that in - because i'm fighting false news on that for a couple years now).. and both those core took many years to gain some traction. 

 

JB did exactly what i would have done as a manager this off season.   Which is let two go (it was never three TT was a rental, paid for and did his job that's it), not the short term easy route for sure - but the one with the medium to long game in mind.   The only thing that could screw this up now is how the money is spent over the next two years.   JB has demonstrated to me at least - that he's fair with his RFA's... so not that concerned about that.    I'm also a little worried at how he stays even with both Sutter and Beagle for half the money.    

 

Point is that he's done enough to give him some slack, and let him follow or see it through.   A down year was always a possibility - even with the same lineup (how did we do against these teams again?)... He's got a pass for me if we miss out this year.   Next season is the line in the sand for me.    Maybe not even then depending on the cirumstances.   Doesn't make me a homer - I'm a realist.   And realistically we should be having the same struggles as Detroit is now.   Think about it.  Do some research if you have to. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

GM JB gets a solid C for me.

 

The bad: LE contract, not fighting the league about the Luongo recapture penalty, not dealing vets for more picks to do a proper rebuild, questionable trades, needed more draft picks to pan out over the 6 years...outside of 1st rounders we have Demko(2nd), Hoglander (2nd) Gaudette(5th) fringe nhl player, Rathbone tbd. Ideally we would have been able to find some more picks that could have transitioned into NHL players during these 6 drafts.

 

Tying us up with so much dead cap space hurt us big time this past off season, contracts were way cheaper then we have ever seen and we had no $$ to work with due to the term given out on past their prime veterans: Roussel, Sutter, Beagle, LE. 

 

Not a fan of having such inexperienced NHL coaching throughout this retool, having another well respected veteran coach on the bench I think would be beneficial. I would try to grab Gallant as an Associate coach...Green does NOT have a new deal yet and unless he is asking for top end pay makes no sense why we would NOT have extended him already. You can blame Covid all you want but fact is next season we will still need a coach and with him not being extended I think the team as a whole wanted to see what happens this year, which I am all for. Our lucky run last year was only because we had a play in series...otherwise the boys would NOT have played in the playoffs.

 

The good: Saved face with Pearson trade, Motte was a great acquisition, some of the drafting has been good, but that credit is not solely JB's either. 

 

All in all I think JB gets to can 1 more coach before his head is next on the chopping block.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I Notice the Benning supporters cite his drafting and scouting skills and without proof blame ownership for his mistakes

The anti Benning cite his cap, and signings and trades

 Do we not have scouts do the scouting?

Wasn't Benning the one who said drafting is done by consensus? So why give him all the credit for that?

Wasn't it Benning who said his scouts pushed him on Petey?

Wasn't Boeser the BPA and rated at 25?

Wasn't Hughes the best defenseman available and exactly what we were hoping for - a defenseman with skill

If you look at what all the top Gm's state, the draft is left to the scouts - It is their show, they are the ones doing all the work

 

Think about what GM means, - General MANAGER - He has to Manage so many departments and make a coercive team with the same objective and managing the salary and prospect pool

For some reason he let his scouts go that were responsible for us getting our best prospects

 

If you say he's the best GM based as a scout, I don't believe that is his job and he relies on his team of scouts and checks their recommendations out occasionally to confirm

I think he could have done much better managing for sure, as he is learning on the job as his first GM job

He  has had the luxury and luck of high draft picks, with all his 2nd high round draft picks almost as high as our 1st round picks during the Sedin years (so almost 2x as many picks with 1 a top 6 each time)

 

With that luxury and a good scouting staff providing you good information, would that make all of us a good GM for picking those guys?

He is a manager, a general manager and should be based on his managing

I would rate his team (that he had) high on the higher round picks, still waiting on late round gems ( a 3rd round recently was like a 4th while being a presidents team)

I am unsure what to rate him as far as a manager

All this is fine and all, but it's also a little narrow vision in my opinion. This is only focusing on us, the Canucks. This isn't taking into account how Benning's been compared with other GM's. So many people just focus on what Benning's done; yet, you hardly hear someone ask themselves this while also asking what are other GM's doing around the league doing.

 

And this goes both way. To claim Benning's the best GM. What makes the other GMs worse? To claim Benning's the worst GM. What makes the other GMs better?

 

Is Benning the only good drafter in the league? Short answer: no. Look at how good Tampa Bay is if you need proof of that. Some GMs have a better record than Benning on the draft floor. Others are downright terrible on the draft floor.

 

Is Benning the only GM that signs people like Eriksson? Also no. In fact, look at who else was signed when we signed Eriksson: Lucic, Okposo, Backes, etc. There are a TON of bad contracts signed in even that very same day we signed Eriksson.

 

The truth is, you can paint all of this whatever shade of positive or negative you want, but when you start comparing all of these with the outside world that is the actual NHL and not just our team, the good and bad get diminished. It's for this reason I really think Benning's more in the middle of the pack in terms of GMs. He's not terrible. He's not the best. He has his good and bad, just like with any other GM.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Benning inherited Sedins (2) Horvat, Tanev, Markstrom , Kasian*, Kesler*, Edler, Bieska*  and Burrows*

* all traded

The cupboard was not as bare as is suggested. To choose to set the clock at 2017 may be convenient, but to simply discount the previous 3 years is a tad disingenuous. JB has been charge for coming up to 7 years, we can't waive a magic wand and jusr cut short his years :rolleyes: By the way that's roughly the same time as Sakic and Gorton

 

32 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

False equivalent Gillis to Benning. Gillis had a winning team* which had more success either before or since, two Presidents cups and a game 7 in the SC final in his 6 year. He had no need to trade but even then he never signed a Ericksson type money launderer. Benning** should be so lucky. The team rebuild started in 2013 when Gillis traded Schneider to get Horvat. He traded for Markstrom and signed Tanev as a NCAA FA. Hodgson was an all star at the WJC but his back and his father messed up what should have been a great career. Many said he was better than Taveres.  

 

 

*   GILLIS

 

**  BENNING

  • 2 playoff appearances

I'm not sure I quite follow the point.

 

But, if we're going to list Sedins, for example, as inherited - the same is true of Gillis - Gillis inherited a whole lot - and a whole lot more than Benning.

Not even remotely close.

 

Gillis inherited

 

2 Sedins

Kesler

Burrows

Hansen

Raymond

Ohlund

Edler

Salo

Bieksa

Mitchell

Luongo

Schneider

 

Gillis did a good job complementing the existing build.

Hamhuis, Malhotra, Tanev, Higgins, Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, Torres types...

Also made 'mistakes' - ie Ballard, renting Roy..

Drafting was poor/abysmal.

 

Benning 'inherited'  33 yr old Sedins and Burrows, etc.  But he also inherited a seriously Tortorella devalued lineup - a roster full of mostly veteran players coming off career worst seasons - many of them borderline unmoveable - or whose value would have to be 'rebuilt' before they can be used to retool.

 

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000392014.html

 

Have a look.

1 player in the top 13 scorers under the age of 27.

Tanev was their second leading scorer under age 27 - he had 17 pts.

Kassian was #1 under 27 - with 29 pts.

1 20 goal scorer there - Kesler (who gave a list of 2 - but brought a solid return imo).

 

Anyhow - Gillis did a good job complementing the contending window.

What was left can't be entirely 'blamed' on him - the Tortorella experiment only multiplied the complications of the following transition.

 

Anyhow - I don't care to rehash everything that's been done in Benning's tenure - but any fair 'comparison' of Gillis and Benning needs to start from a realization of a completely apples and oranges set of circumstances.  Gillis was a good GM for the stage he entered - Benning is a good GM for the one he entered (and in fairness to Benning, it is far more difficult to please a fanbase in his circumstances than the ones Gillis inherited.   Burke/Nonis deserve a lot of credit in the core and 'foundation' of the contending teams as well.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, vannuck59 said:

Jay Beagle is worth every penny now Roussel on the other hand not so much.

If Jay Beagle was worth every penny he would’ve been dealt this off-season to make room for TT. I don’t understand how a fan of this team can be like “cool” when they look at TT and Beagle and be totally happy paying a fourth line centre the same amount of money as TT. It’s crazy man. It’s a self soothing narrative to suppress disgust deep down inside. I can’t even believe this has to be said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IBatch said:

Why do you think 28 year old blue chip UFAs are any different then they were even five years ago?   Stone, Patches - what bums right?  Vegas just completed their first build with AP too...sure they won't like the last couple of years of that deal, but most blue chip D's have their best years in their early 30's still, not 23-26....ask Hedman, ask Burns...Carlson ... 

 

Go back a few more years and you have Tavares and before him Stamkos.   TT types are valuable too, the league is full of them in the range he got.   
 

The only thing that's starting to happen is contracts this year due to Covid mostly, have a limited term in comparison.   Other then that - it's business as usual, paying for 27-30 year old first time UFAs to plug holes.    Myers and Schmidt are both solid acquisitions, won't see much of if any decline if their minutes are managed.  

 

Will say one trend that thankfully has sowewhat abated - thanks to Dubas, is paying third contract type money for second contracts.    Keller got paid in ARI and a few other ones come to mind so it wasn't just TO doing it,  it's a miracle the rest of the GMs have stood their ground ....  and Joe Thornton/Perry /Spezza deals are for depth and leadership only, they don't do what Beagle does. 

Ok, sure, let’s give you one in the win column here. UFA’s are a great idea. It still doesn’t dismiss the fact that we have no cap space after emerging from multiple years of absolute nothing. We invested money in a period of time that was completely meaningless. Now that money is stretching into a time where we could have the flexibility to acquire a PLD or a young RHD that will be hitting their stride in sync with the rest of the core. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Convincing John said:

Ok, sure, let’s give you one in the win column here. UFA’s are a great idea. It still doesn’t dismiss the fact that we have no cap space after emerging from multiple years of absolute nothing. We invested money in a period of time that was completely meaningless. Now that money is stretching into a time where we could have the flexibility to acquire a PLD or a young RHD that will be hitting their stride in sync with the rest of the core. 

Since i'm already winning, please do tell me how we'd "acquire" PLD?   Laine is the bar - does that mean your suggesting we couldn't have traded Miller or Horvat for him - as in not enough cap (and should we even consider that?...what's the cap hit for PLD again).    We have the "flexibility" but it has nothing to do about cap space - it has to do about who we give up for that asset.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...