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

The logic behind letting Tanev, Markstrom, and Toffoli walk

Rate this topic


Patel Bure
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 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.   
 
 
 
 
 
 

If this is true Jim should be fired by Aquillini on the spot. How can you even think about trading Boeser, one of the players with the best shot in the league. It would have meant that you lose one top six forward for another - older - top six forward. That makes zero sense.

 

Personally I would have tried to trade one out of Roussel or Sutter along with a 2nd or 3rd pick. Retaining salary on either Roussel and Sutter would not have moved enough money out. Sometimes you have to be willing to give up a 2nd or 3rd pick to improve the team. Canucks spent a 2nd round pick and Madden along with Schaller to get Toffoli. If you "invest" these assets you should better find ways to resign a guy like Toffoli.

 

Very disappointing that Jim was talking about moving money out ahead of free agency only to get nothing done in this respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

CGY has 4 games in hand compared to VAN and is only 3 points behind. They will not only catch up soon but also pass VAN in the next 1-2 weeks, easily.

Van:  14 games played, 12 points

CGY 10 games played,   9 points

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

If this is true Jim should be fired by Aquillini on the spot. How can you even think about trading Boeser, one of the players with the best shot in the league. It would have meant that you lose one top six forward for another - older - top six forward. That makes zero sense.

 

Personally I would have tried to trade one out of Roussel or Sutter along with a 2nd or 3rd pick. Retaining salary on either Roussel and Sutter would not have moved enough money out. Sometimes you have to be willing to give up a 2nd or 3rd pick to improve the team. Canucks spent a 2nd round pick and Madden along with Schaller to get Toffoli. If you "invest" these assets you should better find ways to resign a guy like Toffoli.

 

Very disappointing that Jim was talking about moving money out ahead of free agency only to get nothing done in this respect.

Moving Boeser, in theory, would have allowed us to recoup the first lost in the Miller deal along with the good prospect lost in the Toffoli deal (Madden) if Boeser had been worthy of receiving a 1st and a good prospect.  The freed up salary would have then allowed us to re-sign Toffoli (who is pretty much at the same level as Brock).   
 

The other thing I heard was that the Canucks were exploring the idea of using Brock to find a long term Edler replacement.    Hence, that’s why we kept hearing Brandon Carlo’s name in the Summer.  Boston didn’t have any interest in moving Carlo and tried to lowball Vancouver apparently.    
 

I believe the Canucks also looked into Erik Cernak but Tampa wasn’t interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, iinatcc said:

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? 

It was Tanev's decision as he got an offer that was more than what Benning could give him.

 

This is hockey and I'm quite sure he'd have good things to say about this organization.  No sour grapes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DIR well done.   Your not the only fan that has noticed this and for sure it's thread worthy.

 

Would like to add... what was the total money to keep all three?  Around 75 million.   And what is the cap savings by not going there?   JV was getting a raise and the one year deal he got was fair and perfect for the club.   Not what he did with Bear right!?   JB gets better every year.    This was for sure his best off season yet.   He's learned from his mistakes and didn't offer any of these guys a contract outside of what fits within our cap structure and future (Tanev for a two year deal - he slept on it and said no).   

 

The actual cap saving is around 8.5 million the day Holtby either gets traded, picked up by Seattle of finished his contract.   All three scenarios work for the Canucks - after Markstrom and Lehner which would of course mean Demko is no longer a Canuck, he was the next best option... and he for sure was the best option fitting into the plan.

 

I can see the plan now.  Crystal clear.   Did exactly as a manager, the best possible outcome for contending for a cup.   Can't believe how many folks are freaking out after 14 games.   GMs don't publicly disclose their plans or tactics - same as managers for company's.   The goal is to win a cup, not get mired into as Lazarus would say - "the mushy middle",  where we'd be destined to go if we signed all these guys.

 

 

Its what happens next that's important.  JB was given 3 first place votes by his peers BEFORE the playoffs.   3 second place votes and 5 third place votes.  1/3 of his brethren voted for him...He took the hard but the correct road.   Losing and winning this year ...  in the macro view - he did the bare minimum to the existing roster to give us a chance this year - but he did the maximum he could to help the roster when it will really need it.   Sorry if anyone can't see that too.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said IBatch! It seems there are quite a few rational posters starting to push back against those that think you can contend for the Cup after 4 yrs of rebuilding. Growing pains, people! I can see what Benning is doing, I hear Green talking about details, and I watch our young stars thinking offence and them wondering why the puck is in our net. Last year they played hard and the offence came easy, this year they're cheating for their offence and getting burnt. Same coach so I think its between the ears right now.

Seen it many times over 50 years of watching hockey, sometimes a team takes the whole season to figure it out. Not sure how long this team will take. A lot will depend on Horvat showing what kind of captain he is. Presently I see him cheating also. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said:

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

Context is everything in a conversation.  I was responding to this quote from @khay :

"I guess our rebuild began in 2013:

2013: Horvat.

2014: Virtanen, Demko.

2015: Boeser, Gaud.

2016: OJ.

2017: EP.

2018: Hughes.

2019: Pod and Hog.

 

I guess the future is bright indeed. But note that JB drafted a lot better than the Avs did."

 

Note that it was the OP that included Gaud & Virtanen.  He also thinks that JB has drafted a lot better than the Avs, to which I totally disagree. I had commented: "As you can see, the Avs have very lucky in the draft considering the lotto draft and/or strong draft years."

 

Wellwood, I know it's hard to keep up with all the posts on this board; I struggle with it often enough.   I just wanted to explain what I had been getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's water under the bridge.  What purpose does it serve to self-flagellate over decisions that have already been made long ago?  I mean maybe we should look back if there were something to learn from it but I don't see any learning going on here, just bitching.  That is counter-productive to getting back to winning.   Besides we fans never know all the variables that go into decisions like that.  We have to just trust that Benning and co. have the team's best interests in mind.  We can win with the line-up we've got if we get it in gear and give a better coordinated effort.  Crying over spilled milk isn't going to make the road ahead any easier.  Go Canucks Go!

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

CGY has 4 games in hand compared to VAN and is only 3 points behind. They will not only catch up soon but also pass VAN in the next 1-2 weeks, easily.

Van:  14 games played, 12 points

CGY 10 games played,   9 points

 

And despite this - the best CAL can do is end up five points ahead of us (doubtful), once things even out.  Despite having a veteran leadership in their prime window stage.   If you can't see that point then i don't think your digging deep enough.   CAL was considered arguably the best team before the season started, and they too are having their struggles....despite Tanev and Markstrom,  both who have played well. 

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, nux_win said:

It's water under the bridge.  What purpose does it serve to self-flagellate over decisions that have already been made long ago?  I mean maybe we should look back if there were something to learn from it but I don't see any learning going on here, just bitching.  That is counter-productive to getting back to winning.   Besides we fans never know all the variables that go into decisions like that.  We have to just trust that Benning and co. have the team's best interests in mind.  We can win with the line-up we've got if we get it in gear and give a better coordinated effort.  Crying over spilled milk isn't going to make the road ahead any easier.  Go Canucks Go!

I'm still mad we didn't re-sign Ronning ...  and traded Linden despite what that meant for the WCE team and the Sedin teams lol...well that's not entirely true ... losing Bure still rubs me the most 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, 180sret said:

Well said IBatch! It seems there are quite a few rational posters starting to push back against those that think you can contend for the Cup after 4 yrs of rebuilding. Growing pains, people! I can see what Benning is doing, I hear Green talking about details, and I watch our young stars thinking offence and them wondering why the puck is in our net. Last year they played hard and the offence came easy, this year they're cheating for their offence and getting burnt. Same coach so I think its between the ears right now.

Seen it many times over 50 years of watching hockey, sometimes a team takes the whole season to figure it out. Not sure how long this team will take. A lot will depend on Horvat showing what kind of captain he is. Presently I see him cheating also. 

 

Thanks 180sret ... i have too.   Used to go to as many games as i could during the Linden- Messier-WCE-early Sedin era ... and didn't live in Vancouver but on the Island...the only thing i'd truly critique is a systematic change league wide - no more tough guys on the fourth line to keep players honest they could also play the game.   Tough thing to get over really, but that's off topic. 

 

At least during our darkest days we'd never get beat in the alley as they used to say.   All this belly-aching about Myers , well Rathbone or Chatfield and most likely OJ and Woo aren't going to replace that.

 

  Aside from that absolutely correct - this could and most likely should take a year to get a proper groove on.   Naslund came in and was gifted primo minutes soon after, but was a minus magnet and struggled a lot.   Most fans on here know the Sedin story, they almost quit a year or two in - that's how tough it was on them and it was way, way, way harder back then given the dead puck era and the size, strength and character/willingness to drop the gloves of the average player. 

 

The early 2000's was all about big and nasty until the lockout came along and curbed it.   Honestly feel that both QHs and EP wouldn't make survive hockey from 1990-2004... and i'm glad they don't because we'd be screwed if that was the case.   

 

What is the case is this:  We have one of the most promising young cores in the league.   Detroit's rebuild is the best comp, SJs a little behind but also relevant.    CAR would be the best current team as a comp for the core....

 

To get all wound up after 3-14 games is silly.    Every team we've ever had, including the best ones - went through similar cycles.   Heck out 94 team - which for sure deserves a lot of reverence, was .500 when we went to the final.   Of course the year before we were a top team in the league.  Point is - patience is a virtue - and get that younger fans might lack perspective.   Especially those that started during the WCE onward .... most winning we've ever had as a franchise.   And thank Linden for that.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 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 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

 

 

All fair comments for sure.   Right now as fans - EVERYTHING hinges on the 20 or so million in cap space soon opening up because of LE signing, Luongo and not signing Markstrom, Tanev and won't even go into TT.    It's a scary place for sure and i don't have the answers for that.   All i will say is this.   JB seems to be getting better year to year.   And he absolutely made the correct decisions this year as far as re-signings go IF this core will contend.    Nobody wants to watch another Vegas series. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, IBatch said:

All fair comments for sure.   Right now as fans - EVERYTHING hinges on the 20 or so million in cap space soon opening up because of LE signing, Luongo and not signing Markstrom, Tanev and won't even go into TT.    It's a scary place for sure and i don't have the answers for that.   All i will say is this.   JB seems to be getting better year to year.   And he absolutely made the correct decisions this year as far as re-signings go IF this core will contend.    Nobody wants to watch another Vegas series. 

There isn’t any big wad of money freeing up, people are hanging on to an illusion.

 

This year we have to re-sign Petterson, Hughes, and Demko to raises.  We have Edler who is our 2nd best D man with his contract up and aging... those minutes needs to be replaced.  We have almost no money coming off the books to do all those things, especially considering we have big pushed ELC bonuses that we can’t afford this year 

 

The year after that Boeser gets a huge qualifying offer.

 

The year after that, Horvat and Miller are up for extensions.  Hoglander will be coming off his ELC then already and will be in for a big raise (or replaced by a UFA if he hasn’t worked out as a top 6.

 

If Petterson and Hughes get signed to bridge deals (likely), they will also be expiring by this point and need expensive, max term contracts.

 

Players roll off their ELCs really quickly, and get raises if they are good.  Money gets spent as quickly as it comes off the books.  The only thing that can create cap space is an increasing cap and players signed to long term contracts that become good deals over time because of cap inflation.  The cap is likely to stay flat for about 5 years while the players pay back escrow money owed.

 

 

Edited by Provost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, IBatch said:

All fair comments for sure.   Right now as fans - EVERYTHING hinges on the 20 or so million in cap space soon opening up because of LE signing, Luongo and not signing Markstrom, Tanev and won't even go into TT.    It's a scary place for sure and i don't have the answers for that.   All i will say is this.   JB seems to be getting better year to year.   And he absolutely made the correct decisions this year as far as re-signings go IF this core will contend.    Nobody wants to watch another Vegas series. 

I am so mixed. I have felt some moves to be counter productive, while other times, I have felt Benning's moves have been proper.......

 

The one move that I wished Benning had done this year was look at moving Boeser and keeping Taffoli. Not because Boeser did not play good, but because he is a position that would have been easiest to replace, short term and long term.

 

IMO, the move "could" have brought us a blue chip prospect and a high 1st round pick, and we still would have had Toffoli to replace him short term, and Podkolzin to replace him long term. And that suggestion is not without its peril, so there is no right or wrong answer on that IMO. Just a preference.

 

I think wal;king away from Markstrom and Tanev will be a good thing long term, and will start to show it benefits, starting at the Expasnsion draft, where we would have lost one of Markstrom or Demko, or a very good asset, depending on how Benning would have handled it. Tanev is just an accident waiting to happen, so long term, I was ok with Benning's move/non move.

 

I loved the playoffs last year, but if there was anything Benning could have did better, it was Move Markstrom and Tanev and explained why he did, as he if anyone, should have known what was around the corner in regards to our play this year. I will also say, if he did not, that should be the reason he should be let go. Loosing asset for nothing is a huge deal with me. 

 

To me, that is Benning's biggest failure, and the one that should have a large bearing on his contract re-newel. Like I said earlier, moving Boeser, Tanev and Markstom, would have put us pretty much exactly where we are today, and with a ton more asset in hand.

 

I would argue, that last years playoff run, has not really showed much, in regards to this years play and for me, I compare that to the option of moving Boeser, Tanev and Markstrom, and what it would have given us. But it is subjective opinion and has passed, so it is a mute point.

 

I would also, question Benning's handling of Tryamkin, as he could have actually signed him and loaned him to Sweden, if he had no place to play, and still he would have been available for the start of this season, or anytime for that matter. 

 

Really it comes to Moving Benning, Tanev, and Markstrom, and the asset recovered for such a move...........that and Toffoli

 

But let's move on......what is done is done!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, janisahockeynut said:

I am so mixed. I have felt some moves to be counter productive, while other times, I have felt Benning's moves have been proper.......

 

The one move that I wished Benning had done this year was look at moving Boeser and keeping Taffoli. Not because Boeser did not play good, but because he is a position that would have been easiest to replace, short term and long term.

 

IMO, the move "could" have brought us a blue chip prospect and a high 1st round pick, and we still would have had Toffoli to replace him short term, and Podkolzin to replace him long term. And that suggestion is not without its peril, so there is no right or wrong answer on that IMO. Just a preference.

 

I think wal;king away from Markstrom and Tanev will be a good thing long term, and will start to show it benefits, starting at the Expasnsion draft, where we would have lost one of Markstrom or Demko, or a very good asset, depending on how Benning would have handled it. Tanev is just an accident waiting to happen, so long term, I was ok with Benning's move/non move.

 

I loved the playoffs last year, but if there was anything Benning could have did better, it was Move Markstrom and Tanev and explained why he did, as he if anyone, should have known what was around the corner in regards to our play this year. I will also say, if he did not, that should be the reason he should be let go. Loosing asset for nothing is a huge deal with me. 

 

To me, that is Benning's biggest failure, and the one that should have a large bearing on his contract re-newel. Like I said earlier, moving Boeser, Tanev and Markstom, would have put us pretty much exactly where we are today, and with a ton more asset in hand.

 

I would argue, that last years playoff run, has not really showed much, in regards to this years play and for me, I compare that to the option of moving Boeser, Tanev and Markstrom, and what it would have given us. But it is subjective opinion and has passed, so it is a mute point.

 

I would also, question Benning's handling of Tryamkin, as he could have actually signed him and loaned him to Sweden, if he had no place to play, and still he would have been available for the start of this season, or anytime for that matter. 

 

Really it comes to Moving Benning, Tanev, and Markstrom, and the asset recovered for such a move...........that and Toffoli

 

But let's move on......what is done is done!

 

 

 

Benning DID explore options of moving Boeser and Virtanen (one or the other) in order to accommodate Toffoli but received low ball offers.

 

Benning was trying to use Virtanen to get a low 1st (Kasperi Kapanen as a comparable) but no one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things really open up for 2022/ 2023.     Loui cap recapture and LE off the books.     Last 9 mil.

This is 7 years of Jimbo. I am not saying it is good or bad. 

 

Boeser           RFA

Bo                  5.5  mil               2023 UFA

Miller              5.25mil               2023  UFA

Petey              TBA

Hoglander       891,666

Podkolzin        ELC               Hopefully

 

Myers              6 mil                 2025  UFA

Schmidt           5.95 mil            2026  UFA

Hughes            TBA

Who ever they add next year. I hope they are very careful next year. Focus on 2022/23.  Take next year to see how many spots can be filled internally. Pod , Lind and maybe a high draft pick.

 

Year after next this is the core of our team.    Lots of cash. Fresh start.    ( not sure I would like Jim spending this amount of cash)

See what they can get for expiring UFA's this year.  Sutter and Pearson should have value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Benning DID explore options of moving Boeser and Virtanen (one or the other) in order to accommodate Toffoli but received low ball offers.

 

Benning was trying to use Virtanen to get a low 1st (Kasperi Kapanen as a comparable) but no one bit.

Lets hear what those offers were.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Lets hear what those offers were.........

Boeser for Carlo and Boeser for Dumba had been discussed.   I think there was also a rumor of the Canucks wanting to package Boeser++ for Ekblad.   Unfortunately, the rest of those teams didn’t agree with what Boeser’s value was and we received ridiculous low ball offers (to what extent I don’t know).   
 

I don’t know which teams were specifically talking to Vancouver about Virtanen, but Benning was trying to get in on the draft using the Kasperi Kapanen deal as a comparable.

 

Benning was looking at ways to recoup the pick and prospect lost in the Miller and Toffoli deals, but his biggest priority was in finding a long term Edler replacement.    Guys like Toffoli, Tanev, and Markstrom weren’t priorities for Benning due to the fact that we had guys in the system that would replace them one day (Podkzolin, Tryamkin, Demko).   That’s why Benning was so obsessed in trying to land OEL and then traded for Nate Schmidt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there is another issue that had some bearing on all this, and that is the signing of Ferland.

IMO, Benning should be getting thank you cards from all 30 other GM's

As, with Ferland's concussion history, we should have just stayed away from him.

It was a calculated risk that backfired

In essences it was like signing another Tanev, and Benning should have known better

I think most of did.............

 

Straws on a Camels back, but eventually...there are to many

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Boeser for Carlo and Boeser for Dumba had been discussed.   I think there was also a rumor of the Canucks wanting to package Boeser++ for Ekblad.   Unfortunately, the rest of those teams didn’t agree with what Boeser’s value was and we received ridiculous low ball offers (to what extent I don’t know).   
 

I don’t know which teams were specifically talking to Vancouver about Virtanen, but Benning was trying to get in on the draft using the Kasperi Kapanen deal as a comparable.

 

Benning was looking at ways to recoup the pick and prospect lost in the Miller and Toffoli deals, but his biggest priority was in finding a long term Edler replacement.    Guys like Toffoli, Tanev, and Markstrom weren’t priorities for Benning due to the fact that we had guys in the system that would replace them one day (Podkzolin, Tryamkin, Demko).   That’s why Benning was so obsessed in trying to land OEL and then traded for Nate Schmidt.

Just because CDC discusses it does not mean Benning did....................

Show me a quote from Benning or Minnesota or Boston

 

 

Edited by janisahockeynut
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...