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

22 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I would have traded the twins to a bubble team for highest draft picks in 2014-15. Probably two seconds. Saving a lot of contract money, and collect draft picks. This would have made LE unnecessary.:towel:

Probably get Beagle, kept Sutter, but not Rooster or Lievo. Grab a couple interim UFA forwards and developed from within. Grab a great UFA dman along the way.

Why let the twins contracts get in the way? Just ignore the NMC and hope the league doesn't notice?  :sadno:

Link to post
Share on other sites

logic 

agree with the oel scenario.

have le to deal with.

spent too much on Sutter, Beagle and Rousell too...

 

Tanev - poor qh, partner gone, after a calder race... wow... didn't see that coming... and it was payday for chris imo, he shouldn't be as injured in calgary cause they have a lineup with enough size and deterrance....  Tanev was always putting himself in Bad areas and veing2

 

 

 

 

love the drafting by jim and crew... where'd that judd guy go.... 

hope jim still hits the draft as well...

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, lmm said:

I thought you were a Benning supporter

I was pretty neutral, and have long said he shouldn’t have signed those veterans to long term expensive contracts.  There are always solid pro veterans left at the end of free agency to pick up for next to nothing as protection and stability for the kids... Vanek/Vrbata/Schaller types.

 

I also said before this past offseason that it was make or break for Benning.  If he could elegantly get out of his mistakes cap wise then he should keep his job... if he couldn’t he should he fired.

 

He couldn’t...

Edited by Provost
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, appleboy said:

What is confusing about Tanev is why they never tabled a 3.5 mil for two years right away.

Yep... see what sort of discount he would have taken at least.  We don’t know.  Stecher was also our best shot suppression D over the last few years.  He is a hometown guy and if you offered him $1.5x3 years you don’t think he would have taken it over the Detroit deal?  Kind of a no-brainer for a team that bleeds scoring chances.

 

This isn’t hindsight talking, most folks were scratching their heads from the start of the offseason onwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment I see Hughes as more expensive than Pettersson to resign. It really can help the Canucks long term having a bad season this year. It wasn’t long ago that there was 10+ million/ year numbers being predicted , now it’s more like 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lmm said:

How can you even quantify all of JB's blunders?

 

What if we had 7 years of good /great coaching, would the team be better at defense?

What if he kept Sullivan? 

what if we had Tanev... Calgary would not have Tanev., their best +/- guy. That is a plus for us and a minus for them

What if we had Toffoli and Edmunson ? Then Montreal would not have either of them.

2 cracks at Pasternak???

What if he sold rather than bought for the last 5 -7 years, We could have 5-7 more young guys ready to play

What if he did not spend 2 picks per year on guys that weigh 138-169 #s and threw some pick and NHL sized players

What if he realized that the Sedins did not have another cup run in them?

 

So many blunders, it hard to know how different this team would be wothout them all compounding upon each other.

Like any contender, the team live and dies by its top or star players and realistically Petey and Hughes are just not there yet with or without the better supporting cast. Yeah no blunders will probably get them into a playoffs without much issue but expecting them to go any where close to the cup is a bit unrealistic.

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gurn said:

Why let the twins contracts get in the way? Just ignore the NMC and hope the league doesn't notice?  :sadno:

It was unrealistic to spend ton$ to get them another playoff run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, higgyfan said:

After Tampa won the cup in '04 they crashed mightily.  Any team that starts drafting top 10 picks for 5 years is rebuilding.  Fortunately for TB, they had very good scouting and managed to pick up great players in the later rounds as well.

 

I don't agree with that.  Duchene, Landeskog, McKinnon (better than any player on Nucks), Rantanen, Jost, Maker, Bowen, Newhook is a pretty nice collection of players.  I certainly don't see Virt, Gaud, or possibly OJ in that group.

 

I didn't address the recent UFAs and signings, so I won't say much about that.  The Marky and Tanev signing to Cal appears to be a loss for our team at this point.  It's hard to say how these contracts will play out over time, or where Demko will be in his development.  I'm not sure about TT, as he only scores against the Canucks.  I doubt he will maintain his point a game production over the whole season.

 

Regardless, I still think that the Nucks will continue to improve over the next couple of years (this year may be a wash) and the team will finally be in a good situation with many ELCs, RFA bridgings and plenty of cap space.  I don't know if JB will be around though, as usually, the GM that builds a contender, rarely gets to reap the rewards.

Duchene was picked in '09. That's 12 drafts to date, of which the Avs picked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 4th as part of that span.

Benning's only been here for 7 drafts, and never picked higher than 5th. I'm not surprised that the Avs' group of first rounders looks more impressive. I don't know why you're comparing Gaudette to a list that includes FIVE top 4 picks

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, higgyfan said:

After Tampa won the cup in '04 they crashed mightily.  Any team that starts drafting top 10 picks for 5 years is rebuilding.  Fortunately for TB, they had very good scouting and managed to pick up great players in the later rounds as well.

 

I don't agree with that.  Duchene, Landeskog, McKinnon (better than any player on Nucks), Rantanen, Jost, Maker, Bowen, Newhook is a pretty nice collection of players.  I certainly don't see Virt, Gaud, or possibly OJ in that group.

 

I didn't address the recent UFAs and signings, so I won't say much about that.  The Marky and Tanev signing to Cal appears to be a loss for our team at this point.  It's hard to say how these contracts will play out over time, or where Demko will be in his development.  I'm not sure about TT, as he only scores against the Canucks.  I doubt he will maintain his point a game production over the whole season.

 

Regardless, I still think that the Nucks will continue to improve over the next couple of years (this year may be a wash) and the team will finally be in a good situation with many ELCs, RFA bridgings and plenty of cap space.  I don't know if JB will be around though, as usually, the GM that builds a contender, rarely gets to reap the rewards.

I don't disagree totally since yes, McKinnon is better than anyone that we have and quality of some of their players, like Makar, is not behind our own Quinn Hughes. 

 

What I meant was that we got our players in shorter span than the Avs despite having lower picks.

 

Avs got those 7 players you named from 2009 to 2020 (12 year span) with three top 3 picks (2009, 2011, 2013), two 4th overall picks (2017, 2019).

 

We got our players from 2013 to 2020 without having any top 4 pick.

 

Also, the Avs didn't get anyone meaningful outside of the first round, since 2009. 2009 they hit the jackpot.

 

We are regularly getting players outside of the first round, actually, almost every year except 2013 and 2016 and 2017, 2018 is still too early.

 

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

God know if we would have been in a different spot, if Benning had gone in a different direction, or if Aqualini moved on from Benning, and consequentially Green. What if this happened or that happen, is truly unknown. It is all conjecture.

 

But, having been a Benning supporter all these years, I am starting to question some of his moves. I am starting to look back and see that some of his past moves, had implications far past the 1 or 2 years, which they were intended to be for. 

 

My view is totally subjective, and totally 20/20, in that they have all passed.

 

I have always felt that CDC is far to protective of their players, But not all their players, but certainly their stars.........

 

Trades that should have been forced were not done.........aka Sedin's, Edler, Markstrom, Tanev were all kept and either walked or retired. This was a huge asset drain. People said things such as you don't trade your stars, hero, or community leaders................Then, I look at Boston trading Ray Bourque, Edmonton trading Wayne Gretzky, or Detroit trading away Marcel Dionne, and I wonder why our guys were so special. Imagine the assets these players would have brought.

 

I also look at recent trades, Lainne, Anderson, Domi, Dubois, Webber, and Subban and again wonder why our guys are so special.

 

Then let's look at the " let our players develop in a winning atmosphere" philosophy, and although I understand it, It is Benning's duty to be able to appraise and evaluate his team, and the climate of the NHL, including the strength of the teams around him, and how his team would fair against those teams. This includes, the other teams ability to purchase UFA's (who ever they are), and strengthen their teams. This all culminates in the decision of when your team is ready to actually compete on a yearly and continuous basis.

 

Now most of the above, is about how to accumulate assets, but those assets, could have been used to clear cap, if needed. They would have started to join the team, in recent years, and could have been part  of our young core going forward.

 

The ghost of Rebuilding on the fly, which involves signing players, was not well thought out, really, and although I supported it, it has not turned out well. Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Myers, only served to prevent us from falling all the way to the bottom.  This is not to say that Benning has made all bad decisions as players like Pearson, Motte, and Miller have been great additions for what they are. Free agents like Stecher, McEwen and Chatfield have all contributed in the past or now in the present.

 

But generally Benning has failed in this regard.

 

Now some may question where we would be with out Bennings drafting, but would another GM have passed on Hughes and Pettersson, would another GM have picked Ehlers and Tkachuk, instead of Juolevi and Virtanen? Would another GM picked Pastrnak instead of McCann, or traded our 2nd for Baertschi, or McCann and a 2nd for Gudbranson ?

Well, we will never know either way, but one could argue, we could have actually had the better players in every case......again hindsight is 20/20 

 

Now, the Canucks are ranked somewhere near 4th Overall, in players under 25 years of age, which is a strong indication that Benning has done well, but could he have actually done better, if he had went into full rebuild earlier on and had additional picks?

 

To me it is Drafting vs UFA signings vs Trades, which is the question, if we believe that in 2 years we will be a contender, then Benning passes, if we believe we will not, then he has failed.

 

Coaching is also on Benning, and if you feel we have the right coaches in place, then Benning passes, if not, he doesn't. Benning has a plan, and IMO, Aqualini needs to see some improvement, or he will be gone, if by next year, he does not, then he will not be renewed.

 

I must admit, I am a little all over the place with Benning, but he is that kind of GM. the proof is what the next 12 months brings..........I am hoping for no trades, I am hoping for Green to straightening this year out.........we shall see

 

 

Edited by janisahockeynut
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nathancanuck said:

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

My hope is that the Sebastian Aho and Zack Werenski deals will be used as comparables.   
 

The worst thing the Canucks can do in my opinion, is follow in the footsteps of Buffalo, Edmonton, and Toronto and blow their wads on their top guys right away.   
 

Cost controlled elite talent + depth = championships.   This is the recipe that teams such as Chicago, LA, Boston, St.Louis, and Tampa Bay used in winning their cups.  Even teams like Pittsburgh and Washington followed this model once the cap hit percentages to their top players became lower as the cap started to rise.

 

Speaking of Pittsburgh, I am of the belief that the Toronto Maple Leafs will become the 2010-2015 version of the Penguins (ie will consistently field very good teams but will ultimately lose out to teams following the “cost controlled elite talent + depth = championships” model.

 

This is one reason why the Penguins were inferior to teams like Boston, LA, and Chicago during this time period despite having the two best players in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 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]

I do hope Pearson stays on a cheap deal and ends up on our 3rd line. 

 

I could see Edler finishing his career here maybe on a 2 year extension. 

I doubt Tryamkin returns anymore but its a nice thought.

Hopefully with Virtanen and 1st rd pick we can get a solid Defensive Defenceman that will be Hughes partner for years to come and can play PP minutes on the 2nd unit.

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

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

 

 
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).
 
 

 Do you have the source that they were looking to move Boeser. 

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

 Do you have the source that they were looking to move Boeser. 

I’ll try and find you a specific source tomorrow but there were some rumors this past summer.   Canucks and Bruins were apparently talking.   Boeser to Minnesota was also being discussed apparently.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Provost said:

The OP is rationalizing and conflating a bunch of things.

1.  Virtually no one has argued that we should have kept Markstrom or Tanev at the price and term they got elsewhere.
2.  We don't know what price and term Tanev would have accepted here because the team didn't bother negotiating with him.  The only negotiations that happened were with Markstrom and Arizona.

3.  Toffoli and Stecher would have been on more team friendly contracts than the guys we did sign going forward so would not have handcuffed us in the least.
4.  There is no evidence at all that Benning tried to trade Virtanen and/or Boeser.  If his ask for Virtanen was a 1st round pick, then shame on him for badly evaluating his own player.  Qualifying Virtanen was a mistake that cost dollars which could have been used for a valuable player who wasn't going to be stapled to the bench.
5.  He could have exited a bad contract by using a pick or player like Virtanen.... if he had jumped on it early like half this board was begging him to the moment we got eliminated from the playoffs.  Other teams were able to move money... even Gudbranson was able to be traded.  Benning couldn't get it done, and the opportunity cost of those tied up dollars cost us cap efficient players.
6. Nothing said we had to sign Holtby, there were many free agent goalies out there that we could have had for cheaper.  Between not qualifying Jake and signing a cheaper guy like Griess there would have been Toffoli money
7.  From his own words he said he "ran out of time".  Make all the guesses or listen to whatever speculation or rumours you want... or believe he isn't lying.  He just spent all his time on Markstrom and OEL and didn't address any of the other players who were waiting for a phone call until after well into free agency.  This is pretty clearly corroborated by those players after they left saying they didn’t hear from the Canucks side at all.  I can't even imagine after all Tanev had bled for the team, finally calling him for the first time 3 days into free agency after he had been waiting for months for an offer and then telling him that they would call him back later in the day "if" another deal couldn't be worked out with another player... that is what Tanev said happened and why he decided to sign with the offer that was actually on the table from Calgary.

Oh look, here's another poster that continually bashes Benning to no end.

 

3. That's a huge assumption. Toffoli did wait for quite a while, so one could safely assume he did exercise ALL his options.

4. There is no evidence at all to think he didn't listen to the calls on Virtanen either. How do you know he didn't like the offers?

5. "could have" is a very problematic expression, especially on CDC. It usually doesn't take into consideration other factors, so if it were so easy, you wouldn't have GMs who would be stuck with contracts. Do you really think Benning wanted to be in this position? You're also overlooked the expansion draft. How do you know he didn't make moves because he didn't want to be stuck in an even worse position?

6. Nothing said we had to sign Holtby, yet the Canucks did. If they took a cheaper option and ended up in this EXACT situation, are you going to use hindsight and said, "Benning should've signed Holtby for CHEAP".

7. We get it. How he handled Toffoli and Tanev was bad. You claim you know about negotiations, but from what you've described here, you continue to prove that you know nothing about how it works.

 

The Canucks are doing bad, sure. But look at the freaking standings. Calgary is below us, in spite of Tanev and Markstrom. Detroit is practically dead last. Only Montreal is doing well with Toffoli, but they are much further along in their development than us.

Can you think for a moment that there are problems on this team that are related to coaching? Schmidt was a top defenceman for LV and appears to suck in Green/Baumgartner's systems. Why is that? It's because the problems of this team were simply covered up by Tanev/Markstrom. Yet we are playing the exact same way as we did last season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

God know if we would have been in a different spot, if Benning had gone in a different direction, or if Aqualini moved on from Benning, and consequentially Green. What if this happened or that happen, is truly unknown. It is all conjecture.

 

But, having been a Benning supporter all these years, I am starting to question some of his moves. I am starting to look back and see that some of his past moves, had implications far past the 1 or 2 years, which they were intended to be for. 

 

My view is totally subjective, and totally 20/20, in that they have all passed.

 

I have always felt that CDC is far to protective of their players, But not all their players, but certainly their stars.........

 

Trades that should have been forced were not done.........aka Sedin's, Edler, Markstrom, Tanev were all kept and either walked or retired. This was a huge asset drain. People said things such as you don't trade your stars, hero, or community leaders................Then, I look at Boston trading Ray Bourque, Edmonton trading Wayne Gretzky, or Detroit trading away Marcel Dionne, and I wonder why our guys were so special. Imagine the assets these players would have brought.

 

I also look at recent trades, Lainne, Anderson, Domi, Dubois, Webber, and Subban and again wonder why our guys are so special.

 

Then let's look at the " let our players develop in a winning atmosphere" philosophy, and although I understand it, It is Benning's duty to be able to appraise and evaluate his team, and the climate of the NHL, including the strength of the teams around him, and how his team would fair against those teams. This includes, the other teams ability to purchase UFA's (who ever they are), and strengthen their teams. This all culminates in the decision of when your team is ready to actually compete on a yearly and continuous basis.

 

Now most of the above, is about how to accumulate assets, but those assets, could have been used to clear cap, if needed. They would have started to join the team, in recent years, and could have been part  of our young core going forward.

 

The ghost of Rebuilding on the fly, which involves signing players, was not well thought out, really, and although I supported it, it has not turned out well. Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Myers, only served to prevent us from falling all the way to the bottom.  This is not to say that Benning has made all bad decisions as players like Pearson, Motte, and Miller have been great additions for what they are. Free agents like Stecher, McEwen and Chatfield have all contributed in the past or now in the present.

 

But generally Benning has failed in this regard.

 

Now some may question where we would be with out Bennings drafting, but would another GM have passed on Hughes and Pettersson, would another GM have picked Ehlers and Tkachuk, instead of Juolevi and Virtanen? Would another GM picked Pastrnak instead of Boeser, or traded our 2nd for Baertschi, or McCann and a 2nd for Gudbranson ?

Well, we will never know either way, but one could argue, we could have actually had the better players in every case......again hindsight is 20/20 

 

Now, the Canucks are ranked somewhere near 4th Overall, in players under 25 years of age, which is a strong indication that Benning has done well, but could he have actually done better, if he had went into full rebuild earlier on and had additional picks?

 

To me it is Drafting vs UFA signings vs Trades, which is the question, if we believe that in 2 years we will be a contender, then Benning passes, if we believe we will not, then he has failed.

 

Coaching is also on Benning, and if you feel we have the right coaches in place, then Benning passes, if not, he doesn't. Benning has a plan, and IMO, Aqualini needs to see some improvement, or he will be gone, if by next year, he does not, then he will not be renewed.

 

I must admit, I am a little all over the place with Benning, but he is that kind of GM. the proof is what the next 12 months brings..........I am hoping for no trades, I am hoping for Green to straightening this year out.........we shall see

Not to nitpick because I agree with much of your post but Boeser was not picked instead of Pasternak as they were in different draft years. The Canucks actually passed over Pasternak twice in 2014, choosing both Virtanen and McCann over him in the first round.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Schmautzie said:

Not to nitpick because I agree with much of your post but Boeser was not picked instead of Pasternak as they were in different draft years. The Canucks actually passed over Pasternak twice in 2014, choosing both Virtanen and McCann over him in the first round.

Not nitpicking at all...my mistake

But the point is still the same

Thanks again......I will go correct it!

Thanks

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

Oh look, here's another poster that continually bashes Benning to no end.

 

3. That's a huge assumption. Toffoli did wait for quite a while, so one could safely assume he did exercise ALL his options.

4. There is no evidence at all to think he didn't listen to the calls on Virtanen either. How do you know he didn't like the offers?

5. "could have" is a very problematic expression, especially on CDC. It usually doesn't take into consideration other factors, so if it were so easy, you wouldn't have GMs who would be stuck with contracts. Do you really think Benning wanted to be in this position? You're also overlooked the expansion draft. How do you know he didn't make moves because he didn't want to be stuck in an even worse position?

6. Nothing said we had to sign Holtby, yet the Canucks did. If they took a cheaper option and ended up in this EXACT situation, are you going to use hindsight and said, "Benning should've signed Holtby for CHEAP".

7. We get it. How he handled Toffoli and Tanev was bad. You claim you know about negotiations, but from what you've described here, you continue to prove that you know nothing about how it works.

 

The Canucks are doing bad, sure. But look at the freaking standings. Calgary is below us, in spite of Tanev and Markstrom. Detroit is practically dead last. Only Montreal is doing well with Toffoli, but they are much further along in their development than us.

Can you think for a moment that there are problems on this team that are related to coaching? Schmidt was a top defenceman for LV and appears to suck in Green/Baumgartner's systems. Why is that? It's because the problems of this team were simply covered up by Tanev/Markstrom. Yet we are playing the exact same way as we did last season.

The contract Toffoli signed in Montreal was really team friendly... he said he really wanted to sign here but didn’t get an offer.  It isn’t a wild assumption that we could have gotten the same deal... it is literally what he said.

 

Of course Benning didn’t want to to be in the position he was... but he put himself there.

 

The expansion has nothing to do with signing Toffoli or Stecher.  Neither of them got a NMC, so that is 100% irrelevant.

 

Yes I do know negotiations... not talking with the other side is not a way to get a deal done, especially if they have other options.  If that is above your head, not sure how anything but several years of schooling could help.

 

The great things is it isn’t hindsight.  I, and others said at the time it was a mistake to fill up the bottom of the roster with expensive veterans who also got long terms.  I said we needed to get any value from Virtanen in trade before his play plummeted again, while you were railing on about how he had turned a corner and was going to be a top end power forward.  I said he should have paid the price to escape from the bad contracts because the opportunity cost of not having that so was going to cost us.

 

Benning has one of the worst winning percentages of any active GM, and is also one of the longest tenured GMs... no one else with his record has been given close to his leash to turn things around.  It is his job to fix things and he hasn’t, not complicated.

  • Hydration 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...