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, iinatcc said:

The problem isn't the last off season it's that Bennig's past mistakes has finally gone back to haunt him. Those free agent signings created this situation where Vancouver had no cap space to improve the team when the young guys need it the most. And before anyone saying hindsight is 20-20, keep in mind a lot of hockey analysts from TSN, to Sportsnet, and even the NHL thought signing Roussel, Beagle, and Schaller were bad ideas. And there were already critisims in the Eriksson signing with people thinking it was too long (the number was ok at the time I admit but people would have preferred it to be 4 years at the time). Heck this is the reason why Trevor Linden decided to leave the organization, he knew this was coming.

 

My worry is not this year. My worry is the affect this will have on Boeser, Horvat, Huges, and Pettersson. This could be a case of the start of a losing culture. Or heck, dare I say, one of these players either walking or demanding a trade like Rick Nash ? Boeser is on his bridge deal. What if he decides to walk after the contract?

 

Every contract signed that summer was a bad contract.  Okposo, Lucic, Eriksson, Backes, Campbell, Ladd, Russell, Boedker, Hudler, Brouwer, Nielsen, Vrbata, Reimer.  Probably the worst UFA class in NHL history.  Loui was coming off a 30 goal season and was probably the safest bet out of the bunch due to his Swedish ties with the Sedins.  Nobody could have predicted such a fall for him, essentially the very next year.  I think most of those UFA contracts from the summer of 2016 have been bought out already.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

The problem isn't the last off season it's that Bennig's past mistakes has finally gone back to haunt him.

Or is it his successes coming too fast that, is now hosing the team?

Who thought E.P. and Hughes would be so good so soon?

Next season a lot of cap comes off.

  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

You are barking up the wrong tree. Goaltending is the least of our problems. 

Arguing about Tanev or Stecher is more legit as defense is the major problem. 

Well I made that argument on people saying Markstrom 6 x 6 wasn't worth it. So my argument it was. 

Defense is also a problem but let's say even if Markstrom still walks maybe Vancouver has more flexibility improving their defense or solidifying it. Perhaps after acquiring Nate Schmidt, they can also find a way to resign Tanev or maybe sign Tyson Barrie. Or keep Tanev and sign Joel Edmundson. All of a sudden Vancouver has more flexibility in their defense instead of being limited due to cap constraints.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DSVII said:

I will preface this by saying I wish this were true, and that we are the Colorado Avalanche. But at the moment, we are closer to the Oilers and Devils who made playoffs once and have been out of the picture for a while. One word : Value

 

Here's the Av's Roster and Cap hits

https://www.capfriendly.com/depth-charts/avalanche

 

Here's ours

https://www.capfriendly.com/depth-charts/canucks

 

If you waived a random Avs, how confident are you they will pass through waivers? Probably not Saad, but anyone is tempting.  If you waived a random player on our lineup, or any of GMJB's signings, how confident are you someone will pick them up. let's not even look at the top six, which team would more likely have a bottom six player picked up on waivers if they let them go tmr?

 

I agree, we can become the Avs, but as long as this management group, the ones that have handed out the albatross contracts for the last seven years, is still in place. I'm not as confident as you are. We are closer to the Oilers of 16/17 and Devils of 17/18.

 

The Aves also did something we didn't. Admit it was a rebuild and trade away stars like Duchesne for high picks.

 

 

Of course, the Avs have a better depth chart, they are much farther along in their rebuild.  I was comparing the Canucks to the Avs 3 years ago.  Also, the Nucks cap space situation will be much better after next season and beyond as vets become ufas and prospects are ready to join the team. 

 

Other than the odd team that is successful at retooling, rebuilding a team into a contender takes an awful long time; with a lot of bumps along the way.  It is even more difficult for the Cdn teams, as many UFAs will not sign here, or they will demand more money, term and NTC/NMCs.  I'd venture to guess that the majority of LNTC include most Cdn teams on their no go list.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ken kaniff said:

I love how people just keep defending JB as if he isn’t the one that put us in cap hell with boarder line NHL players and unable to sign even one of Tanev, Toffoli, Markstrom or Stecher and instead let them go for nothing. I’d like some of the koolaid please

And can you imagine how this will impact Benning's reputation. Tanev is a well respected player imagine if another hockey player approached Tanev about if he should sign with Vancouver if given the offer, do you think Tanev is going to say nice things about Benning? 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ken kaniff said:

I love how people just keep defending JB as if he isn’t the one that put us in cap hell with boarder line NHL players and unable to sign even one of Tanev, Toffoli, Markstrom or Stecher and instead let them go for nothing. I’d like some of the koolaid please

I love how people think not signing Beagle, Sutter, Myers or even Roussel would have gotten us this far. I mean development of the players as well as making the Playoffs and getting experience and this discussion in general. Any ideas how many penalties they killed, how many face-offs they took? UFA's don't sign for discount with rebuilding teams..

 

Baertschi's contract wasn't great but he had a couple of good seasons with Bo. No one would have let him walk in the situation we were back then, then gets concussed and doesn't make the team again. Contract is over next year, get over it. Recapture penalty not JB's fault, actually just the NHL ****** us over. Ferland was a 50/50 gamble. Everyone knew it's a gamble and everyone was happy with it. Didn't work out but is not really a cap problem. Eriksson is a problem but honestly who knows who forced him to make that offer? I feel like he might have been pushed by Sedins, Linden, Ownership to give this a try and at the time lots of people liked the signing. Even if it was only Benning's decision I can forgive him his biggest mistake so far. Because that's almost all the "bad moves" so maybe we should talk about the good ones too? 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

I get that you want to criticize the GM for everything, but your own logic is fallacious.
 

If they're (Tanev and Markstrom) playing well, and the rest oof team is not, they aren't doing enough to keep Calgary from losing. Another way of looking at this: they aren't the problem, but they aren't this magical solution either.

 

There is one conclusion that can be drawn from this: Tanev and Markstrom has covered up the inadequacies of the coaching situation. The Canucks team, in theory, is better than Calgary's. The standings don't lie.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.   
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

I love how folks are able to do the mental gymnastics of using our cap problems, that JB is responsible for, as the excuse for Bennings and the teams predicament.  :lol:

 

He's in his seventh year....and including the next two seasons you include, it will be nine. With only two playoff appearances.  The first, we squeaked in with a weak division in 2015, and were summarily dispatched by the Flames in the first round.  The second appearance, just last summer, was followed by a gutting of the teams core.   I maintain that it was in the summer of 2015, or the very latest the next summer when we missed the playoffs with our old core, that JB should have begun an actual rebuild. Instead that is the summer he inks LE to a 6 x 6.  And then Gagner.  And when that doesn't work, a new round of overpriced foundational free agents a few years later.

 

I don't even care if it was Aquilini twisting Bennings arm for a lot of his bad decisions.  Jim has to have more discipline and self respect than that. The buck stops with him, sorry. Another risk of hiring a rookie GM who desperately wanted the job.  Perhaps the was intentional on Aqualini's part.  A more experienced GM, like a Lamoriello or a Holland would recognize what they were stepping into and made it clear who would be making the final hockey decisions before they accepted the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I get that you want to criticize the GM for everything, but your own logic is fallacious.
 

If they're (Tanev and Markstrom) playing well, and the rest oof team is not, they aren't doing enough to keep Calgary from losing. Another way of looking at this: they aren't the problem, but they aren't this magical solution either.

Really don't understand what you're arguing here. If they're playing well, they're helping the team.

 

Not even McDavid is enough to carry a bad team to the top. Calgary not playing well as a whole does not diminish their contributions; it's clear they have major problems elsewhere.

 

Edited by kanucks25
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I get that you want to criticize the GM for everything, but your own logic is fallacious.
 

If they're (Tanev and Markstrom) playing well, and the rest oof team is not, they aren't doing enough to keep Calgary from losing. Another way of looking at this: they aren't the problem, but they aren't this magical solution either.

 

There is one conclusion that can be drawn from this: Tanev and Markstrom has covered up the inadequacies of the coaching situation. The Canucks team, in theory, is better than Calgary's. The standings don't lie.

I tend to think Benning understood the problem but simply couldn't come up with a solution, The players that would normally be moved were on too high a salary ie he couldn't find any takers and so there they sat blocking any attempt to sign players we needed. This regretfully was a self inflicted wound that shows the lack of fore sight and planning. Come back Lawrence Gilman  :lol:

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BoKnows said:

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

spacer.png

1 hour ago, Timråfan said:

If only Benning was as patient as you are.

Is so we wouldn't have signed Myers, Schmidt and Holtby.

Kept the cheap options like Leivo, Stecher, Fantemberg so Toffoli could be signed. 

:picard:

Edited by ImConfused
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Really don't understand what you're arguing here. If they're playing well, they're helping the team.

 

Not even McDavid is enough to carry a bad team to the top. Calgary not playing well as a whole does not diminish their contributions; it's clear they have major problems elsewhere.

 

I listed coaching as the issue. This includes Green and Baumgartner.

 

Tanev and Markstrom, while good players, aren't doing enough to help Calgary win. The team has struggled mightily, pretty much as much as we have standing wise, except they're not letting in 4+ goals a night.

 

Everyone screams about Benning letting these players go - and what I'm saying is that these players, while good, have been hiding the coaching/structural issues that have existed for years. That starts with Green and his crew. They should absolutely not get a free pass like you've been giving them.

Schmidt has played on several good teams for years, including LV - you know, the team that just beat us. Now he sucks under coach's system. Do you REALLY think it's not the coach's structure still?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Everyone screams about Benning letting these players go - and what I'm saying is that these players, while good, have been hiding the coaching/structural issues that have existed for years. That starts with Green and his crew. 

And who's responsible for the coaches / coaching hire? ;)

 

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

They should absolutely not get a free pass like you've been giving them.

Maybe you're confusing me for someone else but I've made several posts over the past week or so about how Green isn't doing a good enough job and how a lot of our problems are possibly coaching related. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Nathancanuck said:

I love how people think not signing Beagle, Sutter, Myers or even Roussel would have gotten us this far. I mean development of the players as well as making the Playoffs and getting experience and this discussion in general. Any ideas how many penalties they killed, how many face-offs they took? UFA's don't sign for discount with rebuilding teams..

 

Baertschi's contract wasn't great but he had a couple of good seasons with Bo. No one would have let him walk in the situation we were back then, then gets concussed and doesn't make the team again. Contract is over next year, get over it. Recapture penalty not JB's fault, actually just the NHL ****** us over. Ferland was a 50/50 gamble. Everyone knew it's a gamble and everyone was happy with it. Didn't work out but is not really a cap problem. Eriksson is a problem but honestly who knows who forced him to make that offer? I feel like he might have been pushed by Sedins, Linden, Ownership to give this a try and at the time lots of people liked the signing. Even if it was only Benning's decision I can forgive him his biggest mistake so far. Because that's almost all the "bad moves" so maybe we should talk about the good ones too? 

EXACTLY 

This is what I’ve said a handful of times now. You don’t sign UFAs who are to be bottom 6 role players who had career or near career years, for cheap, during a rebuild. They come at a little higher price tag, because they are basically going to have their careers diminished by going to a team who is just starting to admit it’s time to rebuild 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

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]

Gaudette is not a good centre and are we still talking about Tryamkin afters some years of everyone said he is coming., 

 

2 hours ago, DSVII said:

Certainly wished he applied this forward thinking in any of the years before. Even 2019 when he spent almost $10 mil on myers and ferland. It effectively signaled to Tanev his time was done.

 

In isolation you can definitely make the case for letting Tanev/Markstrom/Toffoli

/Stetcher walk and I will agree with you. I made peace with the fact we would lose out on one (optimistic) or three (realistic) of them. 

 

The fact we let all four walk for nothing is the issue here. And the fact we didn't even give Tanev and Toffoli or Stetcher an offer is disastrous asset and people management.

 

This is similar to 2016 trade deadline where we also "ran out of time." 

 

I was perfectly ok with not trading hamhuis if it meant retaining him. But management just let him walk for nothing because they already committed the cap to Sbisa.

 

This isn't hindsight. You hire management to have some ounce of foresight and planning in knowing where the team salary structure is going. That has not happened.

 

Again. I agree we had to let them walk for cap purposes. The frustration is the timing of this. Where was this concern years ago? i remember people being laughed at for suggesting cap space should be considered when signing Gagner, Eriksson, roussell, beagle, myers

two things covid and flat cap, which no team thought of, a lot of teams had to give up good players and let them walk for cheaper one to two year players!

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

I love how folks are able to do the mental gymnastics of using our cap problems, that JB is responsible for, as the excuse for Bennings and the teams predicament.  :lol:

 

He's in his seventh year....and including the next two seasons you include, it will be nine. With only two playoff appearances.  The first, we squeaked in with a weak division in 2015, and were summarily dispatched by the Flames in the first round.  The second appearance, just last summer, was followed by a gutting of the teams core.   I maintain that it was in the summer of 2015, or the very latest the next summer when we missed the playoffs with our old core, that JB should have begun an actual rebuild. Instead that is the summer he inks LE to a 6 x 6.  And then Gagner.  And when that doesn't work, a new round of overpriced foundational free agents a few years later.

 

I don't even care if it was Aquilini twisting Bennings arm for a lot of his bad decisions.  Jim has to have more discipline and self respect than that. The buck stops with him, sorry. Another risk of hiring a rookie GM who desperately wanted the job.  Perhaps the was intentional on Aqualini's part.  A more experienced GM, like a Lamoriello or a Holland would recognize what they were stepping into and made it clear who would be making the final hockey decisions before they accepted the job.

6 full seasons so far. Made the Playoffs twice, lost to Calgary because we got out-coached badly and last years run was pretty fun!

 

Doing that with the team and contracts/clauses and empty prospect pool he took over in 2014 this is pretty amazing. We also dropped every year in the lottery

and still came up with this team while making the Playoffs in 2 out of 6 years. Sure he's not perfect but I appreciate where he got us.

 

How would you have done the rebuild in 2015? Henrik and Daniel for a first each? Mathias for a first? Hamhuis for a 2nd? And everyone was throwing first rounders around to acquire Tanev and Edler right?

 

Agree on Gagner and LE though, horrible contracts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, appleboy said:

LE has been activated to main roster.      LOL

Benning surely reads this forum and think that Green now must use every big gun in the club to turn the ship around. :bigblush:

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...