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

6 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

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

Show me a quote from Benning or Minnesota or Boston

 

 

Will try and find more links but here’s one:

 

https://causewaycrowd.com/2020/07/13/boston-bruins-brock-boeser-enticed/

 

As far as direct quotes from Benning, Boston, and Minny goes, c’mon man.   No one is ever going to talk openly about another teams’ player out of fear of tampering.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ideally you make the Schmidt trade to replace Tanev, keep Toffoli and keep Stecher. As mentioned, I see absolutely no chance we'd have given Markstrom that deal and movement clause unless we had a massive amount of cap space to assure room for the young players (which we don't). It would have been nice to get some of the cheap, effective forward depth that was available on the market this year, but the contracts in the bottom six would not allow that. There was also some nice mid-pairing defensive depth that could have been had for cheap, but that's also not worth discussing since we have no cap room.

 

Management also clearly underestimated some of these players impact on the dressing room.

Edited by TheCustodian
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheCustodian said:

I think ideally you make the Schmidt trade to replace Tanev, keep Toffoli and keep Stecher. As mentioned, I see absolutely no chance we'd have given Markstrom that deal and movement clause unless we had a massive amount of cap space to assure room for the young players (which we don't). It would have been nice to get some of the cheap, effective forward depth that was available on the market this year, but the contracts in the bottom six would not allow that. There was also some nice mid-pairing defensive depth that could have been had for cheap, but that's also not worth discussing since we have no cap room.

 

Management also clearly underestimated some of these players impact on the dressing room.

Management clearly under estimated the need for a Salary Cap plan :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 11:17 AM, 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]

Was just taking a gander at the NHL UFA list for 2022 and it looks like Hampus Lindholm will be a UFA at the time.    He's definitely a guy that I would target that year.   If the Canucks are looking at an Edler replacement at the time, then he's your guy.

 

Gerard Gallant = coach.

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-Podkzolin

####-Bennett-#### 

Motte-Gaudette-MacEwen

 

Lindholm-Schmidt

Hughes-Tryamkin

[some combination of Juolevi, Myers, Chatfield]

 

Demko

[Dipietro or CheapVet]

 

Cliffnotes:

 

1) My hope is that Myers gets claimed in the expansion draft.    

2) Sam Bennett:   While I realize that there are better 3rd line Center options out there (i.e. Colton Sissons, Radek Faska, etc.), those type of guys are very rarely available.   For all of his shortcomings, Bennett is still solid defensively, plays with grit, and elevates his game come playoff time.   He's also old enough to take his game to the next level offensively even if it's not looking as likely.   If Bennett can turn into the type of guy that fill in to an extent if Horvat/Pettersson ever get hurt and/or take some defensive pressure off of Horvat, then I would easily welcome a Virtanen for Bennett type deal.  

 

 

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

They didn’t.

Sure they did, look at Sutter ( foundational player) Little things Loui, Roussell, Beagle, Schaller, who did I miss... how much impact do these players have on current roster versus how much they killed available money in the overall cap. Now we have players walking because we can’t offer anything to clear cap, that is a big impact. Most of those listed are not worth as much now so trading them for less is the only option.

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

Sure they did, look at Sutter ( foundational player) Little things Loui, Roussell, Beagle, Schaller, who did I miss... how much impact do these players have on current roster versus how much they killed available money in the overall cap. Now we have players walking because we can’t offer anything to clear cap, that is a big impact. Most of those listed are not worth as much now so trading them for less is the only option.

Don't forget Meat and Potatoes, Intangibles, and a North American heart :lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Don't forget Meat and Potatoes, Intangibles, and a North American heart :lol:

It could be argued that a few could be called potatoheads... but I have to be careful and not offend any players in case they are delicate!

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Westcoasting said:

Sure they did, look at Sutter ( foundational player) Little things Loui, Roussell, Beagle, Schaller, who did I miss... how much impact do these players have on current roster versus how much they killed available money in the overall cap. Now we have players walking because we can’t offer anything to clear cap, that is a big impact. Most of those listed are not worth as much now so trading them for less is the only option.

The Canucks acquired all of these players while they were rebuilding because......

 

1) they didn’t have kids in the system that were ready to step into the league.

2) they were trying to insulate/protect whatever kids they had in the system by making sure that said kids were playing in roles that were conducive to their level of play.

 

-Prust was brought in because Gaunce wasn’t ready

-Gudbranson was brought in because the Canucks had absolutely NOTHING on their right side D other than Tanev, and young physical “defensive” stay at home dmen are rarely ever made available.   Benning gambled with Gudbranson because they would have been able to move on from Tanev (return on assets) if Gudbranson has panned out.

-Eriksson was brought in because no one in our system was ready to take that 2nd line RW spot.  Hansen was our only good RW while Burrows was washed up.   No PTO’s wanted to sign with us that year while Virtanen wasn’t ready.

-Sutter was brought in so that he could take on the tough defensive match ups so that Horvat and the twins could take on more offensive deployments (I’ll admit that I didn’t like the term and money given to Sutter at all).

-Beagle, Roussel, and Schaller were brought in because Gaudette and MacEwen were not ready at the time while no one could have predicted Pettersson being so good so quickly.

-Myers was brought in to solidly the right side D while not being overly reliant on Tanev.

-The presence of Ryan Miller helped Markstrom develop in the minors.

 

You can’t just sign a bunch of PTO’s and/or push kids into the line-up during a rebuild.  Pushing kids into roles that are above and beyond their levels does no justice to them.  PTO’s also have to have a valid reason for signing on a team, in terms of the role being a good fit for them.  PTO’s and vets looking to save their careers aren’t just going to sign onto a team and be thrown to the wolves in tough match ups while the organization tries to insulate the kids.  Why?  Because - Id said cheap vet/PTO gets slaughtered, it’s the end of their careers after one year.  
 

Hence - those are the reasons why Benning and his team went out and traded for/signed guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, Myers, Eriksson, etc.   

 

It’s also one of the reasons why we were able to successfully sign a guy like Thomas Vanek (ie the role was a great fit for both the team and the player).   
 

Long story short - it’s no coincidence that all/most of our bad contracts will be coming off the books just as guys like Petey and Hughes will need to be reupped.   This was no coincidence.  
 

If you look at the way our cap is structured and what players have been brought in, it will become extremely obvious that 2022-2023 is what Benning and this management group have circled.

 

@kanucks25

Edited by DarkIndianRises
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

The Canucks acquired all of these players while they were rebuilding because......

 

1) they didn’t have kids in the system that were ready to step into the league.

2) they were trying to insulate/protect whatever kids they had in the system by making sure that said kids were playing in roles that were conducive to their level of play.

 

-Prust was brought in because Gaunce wasn’t ready

-Gudbranson was brought in because the Canucks had absolutely NOTHING on their right side D other than Tanev, and young physical “defensive” stay at home dmen are rarely ever made available.   Benning gambled with Gudbranson because they would have been able to move on from Tanev (return on assets) if Gudbranson has panned out.

-Eriksson was brought in because no one in our system was ready to take that 2nd line RW spot.  Hansen was our only good RW while Burrows was washed up.   No PTO’s wanted to sign with us that year while Virtanen wasn’t ready.

-Sutter was brought in so that he could take on the tough defensive match ups so that Horvat and the twins could take on more offensive deployments (I’ll admit that I didn’t like the term and money given to Sutter at all).

-Beagle, Roussel, and Schaller were brought in because Gaudette and MacEwen were not ready at the time while no one could have predicted Pettersson being so good so quickly.

-Myers was brought in to solidly the right side D while not being overly reliant on Tanev.

-The presence of Ryan Miller helped Markstrom develop in the minors.

 

You can’t just sign a bunch of PTO’s and/or push kids into the line-up during a rebuild.  Pushing kids into roles that are above and beyond their levels does no justice to them.  PTO’s also have to have a valid reason for signing on a team, in terms of the role being a good fit for them.  PTO’s and vets looking to save their careers aren’t just going to sign onto a team and be thrown to the wolves in tough match ups while the organization tries to insulate the kids.  Why?  Because - Id said cheap vet/PTO gets slaughtered, it’s the end of their careers after one year.  
 

Hence - those are the reasons why Benning and his team went out and traded for/signed guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, Myers, Eriksson, etc.   

 

It’s also one of the reasons why we were able to successfully sign a guy like Thomas Vanek (ie the role was a great fit for both the team and the player).   
 

Long story short - it’s no coincidence that all/most of our bad contracts will be coming off the books just as guys like Petey and Hughes will need to be reupped.   This was no coincidence.  
 

If you look at the way our cap is structured and what players have been brought in, it will become extremely obvious that 2022-2023 is what Benning and this management group have circled.

At this rate Benning will be long gone before 2022 season

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

Don't forget Meat and Potatoes, Intangibles, and a North American heart :lol:

Sutter will be long gone when our real window begins.  
 

2022-2023:

 

1) Sutter, Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Spooner, Luongo’s contract, Baertschi, Pearson, and Edler will all be off the books.

 

2) Miller, Schmidt, and Horvat will still be on cap friendly deals while Boeser will still be a cost controlled asset as an RFA.  
 

3) Hughes, Demko, and Pettersson will likely be on bridge deals or 5 year deals (aka the “Chicago” model as opposed to the ill fated Edmonton, Buffalo, and Toronto 8 year gazillion dollar deals).  


4) Hughes, Pettersson, Podkolzin, Demko, Hoglander, etc., will all be closer to their peaks.

 

2022-2023 is the year that this management group has circled.   Study the Canucks’ cap on capgeek.com and it becomes extremely obvious.

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

At this rate Benning will be long gone before 2022 season

Even if he is, the 2022-2023 season will be a HUGE opportunity for the Canucks and Benning should be given massive credit if the Canucks make a deep run in 2022-2023.   

Edited by DarkIndianRises
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Even if he is, the 2022-2023 season will be a HUGE opportunity for the Canucks and Benning should be given massive credit if the Canucks make a deep run in 2022-2023.   

No it’s just a big mess of players to shuffle off for the next GM and use the few good assets we got.much like the mess Holland took over or Shanahan took over etc. it’s a process!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Westcoasting said:

No it’s just a big mess of players to shuffle off for the next GM and use the few good assets we got.much like the mess Holland took over or Shanahan took over etc. it’s a process!! :)

“the few good assets we got,”


Non-roster

-Podkolzin

-Dipietro

-Rathbone

-Tryamkin


Roster
-Hoglander

-Demko

-Pettersson

-Boeser

-Hughes

 

Guys like Schmidt, Pearson, Horvat, and Miller have value as cost controlled “vets” that aren’t even that old, while guys like Motte and MacEwen have good value relative to their contracts as well.   
 

While guys like Virtanen, Gaudette, and Juolevi likely have diminished values, they are still young enough and cheap enough for someone to take a gamble on.   
 

Pearson will have trade deadline value if the Canucks are out of a playoff spot at the deadline, while guys like Edler and Sutter *might* be moveable as well (Sutter at 50% retention while Edler might be willing to waive his NTC/NMC if he’s told well in advance that the club will not be bringing him back next season).
 

Oh - did I mention that ALL of Eriksson, Spooner, Sutter, Luongo, and Baertschi will be off the books by July 2022?   
 

I’m not sure where you’re coming from in your post, sorry.

 

Edited by DarkIndianRises
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Benning is safe - come on foilks this is part of the pain we need to go through while we shed some cap. lets get through the expansion draft get rid of the veteran contracts and focus on the future.the team overachieved last playoffs and I think people forgot where we are at - not ready to be an elite team yet but building the foundation - helluva a team tp build around guys like Boeser Hughes Petey etc.

 

Little bit of patience please

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a guy who knows how to build a contender and he's available and is itching to get back.

Mike Gillis.

I'd get him back.

He's 1000 times better GM than the current GM who is massively underperforming. How could you let Toffoli and Markstrom go, for freaks sakes.

Marky was the team MVP last year and you let him walk. How stupid is that???

You overpaid for Toffoli and you gave him away even when he wanted to stay!!@#$

Tetcher gave his heart and soul for you last year. How hard is it to resign him?

 

Edited by Quinn Skates
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Provost said:

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.

Benning inherited the Luongo cap penalty.  That right there would have paid for Toffoli (when adding in the salary of a player that plays in his place).  This and LE not playing anywhere close to his pay cheque are the two biggest pieces of bad luck in my mind.  Everyone thought 6x6 was expensive but LE was playing well when signed.

Edited by NHL97OneTimer
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 10:48 AM, 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.  

You are incorrect in several points:

 

1)  Schmidt is costing more than Tanev... 6 mil versus 4.5.  And there is no term advantage.  They could have re-signed Stecher for the money difference.  Do you not think Stecher would look better than the current bottom half of the D?

 

2)  The real issue is why the Canucks didn't make moves in 2019/2020... they knew contracts would be a problem... why didn't they make trades then and get players back who they could use in 2021?  Why did they trade for Toffoli when they were unsure of signing him longterm? 

 

3)  They got nothing back for Markstrom, Tanev, Stecher, Fantenberg and Toffoli... ZERO.

 

Now this team is desperate... they will trade Virtanen and get nothing in return.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, *Buzzsaw* said:

You are incorrect in several points:

 

1)  Schmidt is costing more than Tanev... 6 mil versus 4.5.  And there is no term advantage.  They could have re-signed Stecher for the money difference.  Do you not think Stecher would look better than the current bottom half of the D?

 

2)  The real issue is why the Canucks didn't make moves in 2019/2020... they knew contracts would be a problem... why didn't they make trades then and get players back who they could use in 2021?  Why did they trade for Toffoli when they were unsure of signing him longterm? 

 

3)  They got nothing back for Markstrom, Tanev, Stecher, Fantenberg and Toffoli... ZERO.

 

Now this team is desperate... they will trade Virtanen and get nothing in return.

1) Schmidt’s style of game will age much better than Tanev’s (Atleast in theory).

 

2) Benning wanted the boys to get valuable playoff experience and didn’t want the season to be lost due to Boeser’s injury.  
 

3) Canucks are thinking long term and down have the cap space for those guys.  Demko, Hoglander, and Tryamkin are supposed to be the replacements for Markstrom, Toffoli, and Tanev while Podkolzin will replace Pearson.  Schmidt was the Edler replacement.

 

I still think 2022-2023 will be the year where we become an elite team (ie all bad contracts will be off our books while our young core will be more experienced), but I’ll admit that things are quite painful right now.

 

Ps - I would do Virtanen for Bennett.

Edited by DarkIndianRises
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

1) Schmidt’s style of game will age much better than Tanev’s (Atleast in theory).

 

2) Benning wanted the boys to get valuable playoff experience and didn’t want the season to be lost due to Boeser’s injury.  
 

3) Canucks are thinking long term and down have the cap space for those guys.  Demko, Hoglander, and Tryamkin are supposed to be the replacements for Markstrom, Toffoli, and Tanev while Podkolzin will replace Pearson.  Schmidt was the Edler replacement.

 

I still think 2022-2023 will be the year where we become an elite team (ie all bad contracts will be off our books while our young core will be more experienced), but I’ll admit that things are quite painful right now.

 

Ps - I would do Virtanen for Bennett.

What will our D look like in 2 years to be elite? We have no potential stud defenseman in the farm.

Imo, the rebuild or retool will continue on for maybe another 5 years until our young core hits their prime. 

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...