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

The logic behind letting Tanev, Markstrom, and Toffoli walk

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, BoKnows said:

Markstroms contract will be ass in a couple years.  Whens the last time 6x6 worked in favour of the Canucks?

yep Both Tanev and Markstrom deals are going to bite Calgary in the arse in fact you can already see the benefit they are providing already as they are doing poorly as well.

  • Hydration 1
  • Huggy Bear 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Canucks will need in two years:

 

A lot can change over the next two seasons obviously but here is where I’d like to see this team in two years:

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-Podkolzin

[New 3rd line]
Motte-Gaudette-MacEwen

 

Hughes-[good “defensive defenseman”]
Tryamkin-Schmidt (or Schmidt-Myers)

Juolevi-Myers  (Or CheapVet + Myers)

 

Demko

[Dipietro or VetBackUp]

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shekky said:

you can already see the benefit they are providing already as they are doing poorly as well.

They're both playing well - Calgary's struggles cannot be attributed to them.

 

I think a lot of fans underestimated what Tanev brought to the team here. I saw a lot of people who either didn't understand his effectiveness and/or put too much weight into his injury troubles.

 

You're seeing how important his 20 minutes of steady, almost mistake-free hockey is. We're a complete mess defensively right now and Tanev was a stabilizing force, even if he missed 15-20 games a season.

 

It's probably true that Tanev won't look great in 3 years. I think Calgary accepted that as they see their window being open for those upcoming 3 years.

 

We're not in the same boat, as we're essentially punting on this season and next due to cap mismanagement.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

They're both playing well - Calgary's struggles cannot be attributed to them.

 

I think a lot of fans underestimated what Tanev brought to the team here. I saw a lot of people who either didn't understand his effectiveness and/or put too much weight into his injury troubles.

 

You're seeing how important his 20 minutes of steady, almost mistake-free hockey is. We're a complete mess defensively right now and Tanev was a stabilizing force, even if he missed 15-20 games a season.

 

It's probably true that Tanev won't look great in 3 years. I think Calgary accepted that as they see their window being open for those upcoming 3 years.

 

We're not in the same boat, as we're essentially punting on this season and next due to cap mismanagement.

yeah wasn't saying they were the reason just saying there team as a whole is not doing well so far this season it may seem by the way I worded it but meant it as a whole though so my mistake on that heh

Edited by Shekky
Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that Tanev had his fair share of missed games due to injury but the 4year term as a reason not to re-sign seems a little misguided.

 

Schmidt is a year and half younger than Tanev but is signed for 4 more years after this season so when their contracts end each player will be roughly the same age and Schmidt is making nearly $1.5m more per season and has also missed a # of games due to injury over the last few seasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

The logic behind letting Tanev, Markstrom, and Toffoli walk:

 

By choosing to move forward with guys like Holtby, Schmidt, and Virtanen over Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli, Benning is thinking long term and not short term.  Yes, we only saved 1.8 million in overall cap but those terms that Markstrom and Tanev got would have hurt us long term.   

 
As far as Toffoli goes, the Canucks were reportedly trying to move one of Boeser and Virtanen to clear space so that they could accommodate Toffoli’s salary but received low ball offers.  Had Benning accepted those low ball offers for either of Boeser or Virtanen, he would have been ridiculed around the league.  In fielding offers for Virtanen, the Canucks were looking to recoup the low first that was lost in the Miller deal, while looking to recoup both the first and good prospect lost in the Miller and Toffoli deals as it related to Boeser  (NOTE - Canucks were looking to move ONE of Boeser or Virtanen in the summer, not both).
 
At the start of the 2022/2023 season, we will have the following:
 
1) All of our bad “rebuild/transitional” contracts will be off the books.
2) Horvat, Schmidt, and Miller will still be on cap friendly deals while Boeser will still be a cost controlled asset as an RFA.
3) Guys like Pettersson, Hughes, Demko, Hoglander, Podkolzin, etc., will be closer to their peak.
 
The next two seasons could be our version of the 2007-2008 season (I.e a regression after having made an unexpected 2nd round appearance a year prior, which is then followed by a window of elite hood), but our cap structure fully indicates that we will likely enter a window of elitehood starting in 2022-2023.
 
My suggestion for my fellow Canucks fans is as follows:
 
1) The future is still bright.   2022/2023 is when our real "window" will start.    This season and maybe even next season is our 2007/2008.    
2) Be patient and enjoy the ride.   

The reason for the moves we made this past off-season, it's pretty clear. You've outlined them well here but all Canucks fans should understand this by now.

 

There isn't really much to discuss on this front.

 

The real question is: at this point of the rebuild, is it acceptable that we pause the ride for 2 seasons due to cap mismanagement? I see a lot of people saying that rebuilds aren't linear and many teams can take steps back before they push forward, which is fine. But is there something to be said about a natural step-back (due to young player slumps, injuries, veterans unpredictably falling off a cliff, etc.) vs. one caused by blunders, and should the person responsible for said blunders be held, well, responsible?

Edited by kanucks25
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with letting Markstrom and Tanev walk at what they got. I think we could have tied Tanev up for less if we had the room, a few days before the deadline.

 

Toffoli, it really sucked to have to let go, and it really comes down to 3 contracts that screwed us over in retaining Toffoli and bringing in some of the other deals that were available around the NHL in the off season.

 

Loui Eriksson is the biggest one and Benning owns this one for giving out a 6 year term, but I also understand the rational behind doing it at the time. LE was looking for stability for his family and wanted 6 years, JB was looking for scoring punch and LE was coming off a couple of strong seasons in Boston and had shown significant chemistry with the Sedins on the world stage. Now, as much as Benning takes ownership of this, LE really needs to just retire and take himself off the books. He has not lived up to expectations of the contract he signed, in any way, shape or form. He can't keep up with the NHL and would have trouble getting a contract right now at league minimum. He needs to go to management and negotiate a position on the team in some form, to keep him stable in Vancouver and take himself off the books, or retire from the NHL and go back to Sweden for a couple of years. I can't see him playing further in the NHL.

 

Baertschi is another and Benning owns this to a lesser extent. I think this comes down to concussions have slowed his play and he doesn't fit any longer. All things being equal, if it was just his contract to move, we could have likely figured something out by bundling with a pick to move him and make space.

 

The other big one is Luongo, and this, the Canucks and Benning are complete victims of the NHL changing standards, after the fact, on something they had already accepted. I think the Canucks could have successfully challenged this in court, but they were likely worried about the long-term implications of challenging the NHL on this.

 

Combined, that's 12 million of dead space right now. yes, we're getting about 2 million back from having them assigned to taxi or Utica, but its still got our hands tied.

 

The good news is, after this season, Baertschi, Sutter (not really a problem but overpaid based on current market conditions) both come off the books and it will be economically viable to buy out LE's final year as it will save us 2 million in space this next season and only cost us 1 million the following. Plus, we will likely lose someone to Seattle expansion in the 2 - 3 million range.

 

There's a number of teams out there who are going to still be in bad cap positions and we may be able to take advantage of that. Just look at Tampa, they are going to be in really rough place, even if they can convince Seattle to take Johnson.

 

We knew we were going to take a step back this season, but I think its far from time to sound the alarms. Part of our issues right now are that we've played more games than other teams and have not had more than one day off since the season started, to actually practice and work on systems. I'm hoping that once we can get a couple of days of practice in, the team will start to settle down and play actual defensive hockey as well and stop the turnovers.

 

  • Like 3
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nathancanuck said:

How do you think the EP and QH contracts will look? 4x6.5?

EP is on pace for the Barzal contract or slightly better if he can get back to his PPG pace, 3x$7m+ as a bridge deal. Hughes is a conundrum, he could very well lead the league in assists and lead all dmen in points but be a total defensive liability. If he does end up leading both or in the top 2-3 of both then I think the same sort of 3x$7m+ as a bridge deal is likely. But leading the league in assists as a 21yrold dman could make some GM's ponder an offer sheet and then who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Markstrom priced himself out with that $6 x $6, no question.
 

15 minutes ago, GritGrinder said:

I get that Tanev had his fair share of missed games due to injury but the 4year term as a reason not to re-sign seems a little misguided.

 

Schmidt is a year and half younger than Tanev but is signed for 4 more years after this season so when their contracts end each player will be roughly the same age and Schmidt is making nearly $1.5m more per season and has also missed a # of games due to injury over the last few seasons.

"Fair share" is a little generous (his career high in games played in a season is 70, and only last season did Chris play all the games).  Not saying Schmidt hasn't missed games but I don't think injuries were the sole deciding factor.  Rather I think Schmidt, at least on paper, showed in his time in VGK and WSH that he had top-level transition ability, which was sorely needed from anyone not named Hughes.  He also played some PP, PK and defensive minutes so his skillset was probably what we needed from a big minute all situations guy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

In fielding offers for Virtanen, the Canucks were looking to recoup the low first that was lost in the Miller deal,

Well having those expectations was certainly a big mistake.. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GritGrinder said:

EP is on pace for the Barzal contract or slightly better if he can get back to his PPG pace, 3x$7m+ as a bridge deal. Hughes is a conundrum, he could very well lead the league in assists and lead all dmen in points but be a total defensive liability. If he does end up leading both or in the top 2-3 of both then I think the same sort of 3x$7m+ as a bridge deal is likely. But leading the league in assists as a 21yrold dman could make some GM's ponder an offer sheet and then who knows.

I'm fine with 3x7 but hope we could make it 4x7 or 4x6.5. As you said both are hard to judge as they are special players (especially Hughes with his great offense but very poor defense). As far as I know Hughes is exempt from an offer sheet which should help us in the negotiation.

I see them both signing a bridge deal of 3-4 years as a longer contract doesn't make sense for either party as there are too many unknowns with the cap, covid and also their development.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is 2007-8 all over again, with a two-year lame duck period,  maybe it would explain JT Miller’s moping. He will most likely not be part of the glorious “prime window”, meanwhile he will likely be traded prior to his contract renewal. His prime is right now, in two more years he will probably be ageing out.

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 5minutemajor said:

If this is 2007-8 all over again, with a two-year lame duck period,  maybe it would explain JT Miller’s moping. He will most likely not be part of the glorious “prime window”, meanwhile he will likely be traded prior to his contract renewal. His prime is right now, in two more years he will probably be ageing out.

Well then he should play better cause he is a big part of the problem to begin with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait And See by Tim Finn

Patience is a virtue,

Possess it if you can,

You gotta wait and see,

Seldom in a woman,

Never in a man,

You gotta wait and see.

 

On that note, let's talk about the Colorado Avalanche.  I see a lot of similarities between the Avs and Nucks.

Officially started their rebuild when the picked up Duchene in the '09 draft.  '10 was a bust.  '11 brought Landeskog.  '12 a 2nd round bust.

'13 Mckinnon.    '14 another bust.   '15 Rantanen.   '16 Jost.    '17 Makar.   '18  another bust.   19  Bowen

 

As you can see, the Avs have very lucky in the draft considering the lotto draft and/or strong draft years. In fact, they had 5 top 3 picks over 10 years!  They also busted on 3 picks of the 10 yrs.:o  But Stevie Y....

 

Now look at their SC playoff record

In the 10 years of their rebuild, these are their playoff results.  (6) did not qualify,  (2) lost in 1st round and (2) lost in 2nd round (those were the last 2 playoff seasons).

 

***Finally, this year the Avs look like they are ready to be contenders.***

 

That's a lot of bad and disappointing hockey for at least 8 years.

 

Wait and see Canuck fans.  Like the Avs, we just might have to go back to the draft this year and maybe like the Avs, win the lotto.

 

  • Upvote 1
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...