[Discussion] How Our Past Offseason Will Hurt Our Future

[BCNate]

16 hours ago, Convincing John said:

We went from a playoff run to the basement. 10% of the voters thought it was a great offseason. Seriously, I’d love to have your optimism, my life in general would be so much easier. 
 

We just spent multiple years in the bottom 5 of the league and we have cap trouble. Doesn’t anyone else think this is absolutely insane? The only cap issue a team like us should have is reaching the cap floor. It’s not just this offseason my dudes, it’s the previous offseasons that finally caught up with us. 

I voted that last offseason was great,  here is why:

 

Last years playoff run was awesome, loved every second of it,  but it was created by the covid situation.  We were not that good,  and likely miss the playoffs the way things were trending.  We benefited from the layoff and took full advantage,  huge win by doing so.  Reality was though,  we were not some powerhouse team,  we had little depth and struggled in many areas,  with a ton of holes in our lineup.

 

This year we are playing in a much better division,  have had some bad luck,  but also some awful performances.  We are getting exposed more for our holes and lack of depth,  it is much easier to have a book on a team in a 7 team league than a 31 team league.  I do believe that we are really a pretty similar team to last year,  and would be in about the same spot in a regular 82 game season,  likewise I feel last years team would only be marginally better in this Canadian division.

 I know many will disagree with what I’ve said so far,  which is fair,  to each there own.

 

Why I think this off-season was a success- we were willing to take a step back in the short term to set us up far better in the long term- as a franchise we have NEVER had the forsight to do that.  We have a very good core: Hughes Miller boeser ep Horvat Schmidt.  I feel pods, hog,  and Juolevi will add to that in time as well.  We are in a cap crunch this year, and next,  partly due to the flat cap,  partly bad choices. I’m not here to cry about it or justify why,  reality is that is where we are at,  but it ends next year.  We have a ton of money opening up to fill holes,  build out a better bottom 6 and find players that fit with our young core.  I would way rather that,  than have brought back Tanev and markstrom for 10+ long term just to have the same team we had.

[Convincing John]

13 minutes ago, BCNate said:

I voted that last offseason was great,  here is why:

 

Last years playoff run was awesome, loved every second of it,  but it was created by the covid situation.  We were not that good,  and likely miss the playoffs the way things were trending.  We benefited from the layoff and took full advantage,  huge win by doing so.  Reality was though,  we were not some powerhouse team,  we had little depth and struggled in many areas,  with a ton of holes in our lineup.

 

This year we are playing in a much better division,  have had some bad luck,  but also some awful performances.  We are getting exposed more for our holes and lack of depth,  it is much easier to have a book on a team in a 7 team league than a 31 team league.  I do believe that we are really a pretty similar team to last year,  and would be in about the same spot in a regular 82 game season,  likewise I feel last years team would only be marginally better in this Canadian division.

 I know many will disagree with what I’ve said so far,  which is fair,  to each there own.

 

Why I think this off-season was a success- we were willing to take a step back in the short term to set us up far better in the long term- as a franchise we have NEVER had the forsight to do that.  We have a very good core: Hughes Miller boeser ep Horvat Schmidt.  I feel pods, hog,  and Juolevi will add to that in time as well.  We are in a cap crunch this year, and next,  partly due to the flat cap,  partly bad choices. I’m not here to cry about it or justify why,  reality is that is where we are at,  but it ends next year.  We have a ton of money opening up to fill holes,  build out a better bottom 6 and find players that fit with our young core.  I would way rather that,  than have brought back Tanev and markstrom for 10+ long term just to have the same team we had.

You’re correct, I do disagree. Does Jim have foresight voluntarily? Or did his choices in the past force him to do so? Tell me how he even had the option to resign Markstrom, Tanev, etc. He doesn’t. His bad contracts of the past displaced those options. He is a pretty decent GM overall but all the good he does is nullified by his UFA frenzies.
 

History usually repeats itself. Tell me how anyone can assume he isn’t going to blow every last penny of his future cap space on more 28-32 year olds on the back 1/4 of their career?  

[erkayloomeh]

This team is hooped until the LE contract is gone  

Imagine what we could do without LE, rooster, luongo recapture, spooner money. 

Also beagle I like but is too much money and same goes for sutter. 

Two years from now when we have purged these contracts out it will be a big weight off this teams shoulders.

Our focus now has to be development of our young players that will fill our bottom six. 

[BCNate]

28 minutes ago, Convincing John said:

You’re correct, I do disagree. Does Jim have foresight voluntarily? Or did his choices in the past force him to do so? Tell me how he even had the option to resign Markstrom, Tanev, etc. He doesn’t. His bad contracts of the past displaced those options. He is a pretty decent GM overall but all the good he does is nullified by his UFA frenzies.
 

History usually repeats itself. Tell me how anyone can assume he isn’t going to blow every last penny of his future cap space on more 28-32 year olds on the back 1/4 of their career?  

Again,  I have no interest in debating the what/why/how some of the deals were signed.  Fact is they were,  we take our medicine,  and after next year they  are gone.  

Do you not think that Tanev @18/4 and Markstrom @36/6 will eventually fall into the exact same “28-32 year olds on the back 1/4 of their career? ” bucket?  Difference being is that this time they would be impacting the prime window of our core.  Seems like you are arguing for the exact thing you criticize Benning for?

 

Yes,  this season is frustrating,  sucks to see them take a step back.  The emergence of Hoglander,  Juolevi, and the addition of another high pick is the silver lining.

 

 Following next year we are out from LE,  Loungo, Rousel,  Beagle(who I’d bring back on a lesser deal).  15 mill.  pods, Lind, this years 1st join our core entering their prime and we have money to fill holes.  That is a really good place to be.

 

[Convincing John]

8 minutes ago, BCNate said:

Again,  I have no interest in debating the what/why/how some of the deals were signed.  Fact is they were,  we take our medicine,  and after next year they  are gone.  

Do you not think that Tanev @18/4 and Markstrom @36/6 will eventually fall into the exact same “28-32 year olds on the back 1/4 of their career? ” bucket?  Difference being is that this time they would be impacting the prime window of our core.  Seems like you are arguing for the exact thing you criticize Benning for?

 

Yes,  this season is frustrating,  sucks to see them take a step back.  The emergence of Hoglander,  Juolevi, and the addition of another high pick is the silver lining.

 

 Following next year we are out from LE,  Loungo, Rousel,  Beagle(who I’d bring back on a lesser deal).  15 mill.  pods, Lind, this years 1st join our core entering their prime and we have money to fill holes.  That is a really good place to be.

 

I clearly stated that he didn’t have the option to resign anyone. He didn’t chose anything. If he had $15M in cap space and chose not to resign Markstrom and Tanev then that would be a choice. He had no choice man. How can you say you’re proud of Benning’s decision to not resign those guys when he couldn’t? Lol. Even without Nate Schmidt and Holtby, still handcuffed. I don’t understand how people can just dismiss these brutal results. If he was managing your portfolio would you be pleased with your return on investment over the past 7 years? We have to have some of the worst results of any team in any sport to spend the maximum amount ever. This guy has no idea how to manage a cap. I’m just so tired of all the excuses people make up for this guy. 

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, BCNate said:

I voted that last offseason was great,  here is why:

 

Last years playoff run was awesome, loved every second of it,  but it was created by the covid situation.  We were not that good,  and likely miss the playoffs the way things were trending.  We benefited from the layoff and took full advantage,  huge win by doing so.  Reality was though,  we were not some powerhouse team,  we had little depth and struggled in many areas,  with a ton of holes in our lineup.

 

This year we are playing in a much better division,  have had some bad luck,  but also some awful performances.  We are getting exposed more for our holes and lack of depth,  it is much easier to have a book on a team in a 7 team league than a 31 team league.  I do believe that we are really a pretty similar team to last year,  and would be in about the same spot in a regular 82 game season,  likewise I feel last years team would only be marginally better in this Canadian division.

 I know many will disagree with what I’ve said so far,  which is fair,  to each there own.

 

Why I think this off-season was a success- we were willing to take a step back in the short term to set us up far better in the long term- as a franchise we have NEVER had the forsight to do that.  We have a very good core: Hughes Miller boeser ep Horvat Schmidt.  I feel pods, hog,  and Juolevi will add to that in time as well.  We are in a cap crunch this year, and next,  partly due to the flat cap,  partly bad choices. I’m not here to cry about it or justify why,  reality is that is where we are at,  but it ends next year.  We have a ton of money opening up to fill holes,  build out a better bottom 6 and find players that fit with our young core.  I would way rather that,  than have brought back Tanev and markstrom for 10+ long term just to have the same team we had.

I don't agree with this take, because if there was a plan, you wouldn't put yourself in a position to be forced to make a hard choice. If this was the plan all along, why did we go all in last year when as late as January 2020 Benning stated "I’m not necessarily going to sacrifice draft picks to make the team better for two months."

 

But I won't debate that with you, I do have one question I want to pose to you. I'm taking what we applied with Tanev, Toffoli and Markstrom to its next logical step. 

 

Say the offseason is a success, because we made the hard decision to walk away from players (and it was a hard decision because these were key contributors) to save cap. It hurts now, but the calculation was made that their careers are past their prime and aren't timed right with our core's peak. The plan, due to flat cap, is to take or lumps and then let our other bad choices expire in roussel, loui, etc... so another cap crunch. That means we intended to take a step back (or bottom out) this and next season potentially as part of this plan to set ourselves up to have cap to compete in the future. 

 

My question is: Do you still consider Miller part of the core? Is Miller's career arc trajectory in line with Petey, Hughes, Boeser, Bo? Will they all peak at the same time? Because that is key, to time our player's best years to coincide with each other.

 

Are we going to be a contender by the time Miller's contract is up when he's 30 two seasons later, do you extend him and hope his game doesn't fall apart as he ages?

 

Because if the answer to any of these questions is not a resounding yes. I think we need to make one more hard decision now for the future's sake and see if we can get value for Miller while he still has it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by DSVII

[Convincing John]

3 minutes ago, DSVII said:

I don't agree with this take, but I do have one question i want to pose to you. I'm taking what we applied with Tanev, Toffoli and Markstrom to its next logical step. 

 

Say the offseason is a success, because we made the hard decision to walk away from players (and it was a hard decision because these were key contributors) to save cap, and the plan, due to flat cap, is to take or lumps and then let our other bad choices expire in roussel, loui, etc... so another cap crunch. That means we intended to take a step back (or bottom out) this and next season potentially as part of this plan.

 

My question is: Do you still consider Miller part of the core? Is Miller's career arc trajectory in line with Petey, Hughes, Boeser, Bo? Will they all peak at the same time? Because that is key, to time our player's best years to coincide with each other.

 

Are we going to be a contender by the time Miller's contract is up when he's nearing 30 two seasons later, do you extend him and hope his game doesn't fall apart as he ages?

 

Because if the answer to any of these questions is not a resounding yes. I think we need to make one more hard decision now for the future's sake and see if we can get value for Miller while he still has it. 

 

 

 

 

 

I like this, a decision for the future could be selling Miller for Futures that will pay dividends in this projected window. If his Foresight is so awesome, why isn’t he cashing in and banking? 

[BCNate]

26 minutes ago, Convincing John said:

I clearly stated that he didn’t have the option to resign anyone. He didn’t chose anything. If he had $15M in cap space and chose not to resign Markstrom and Tanev then that would be a choice. He had no choice man. How can you say you’re proud of Benning’s decision to not resign those guys when he couldn’t? Lol. Even without Nate Schmidt and Holtby, still handcuffed. I don’t understand how people can just dismiss these brutal results. If he was managing your portfolio would you be pleased with your return on investment over the past 7 years? We have to have some of the worst results of any team in any sport to spend the maximum amount ever. This guy has no idea how to manage a cap. I’m just so tired of all the excuses people make up for this guy. 

That is where you are wrong though,  Benning had enough money to bring back Tanev and Markstrom to the deals they got from Calgary.  

[BCNate]

27 minutes ago, DSVII said:

I don't agree with this take, because if there was a plan, you wouldn't put yourself in a position to be forced to make a hard choice. If this was the plan all along, why did we go all in last year when as late as January 2020 Benning stated "I’m not necessarily going to sacrifice draft picks to make the team better for two months."

 

But I won't debate that with you, I do have one question I want to pose to you. I'm taking what we applied with Tanev, Toffoli and Markstrom to its next logical step. 

 

Say the offseason is a success, because we made the hard decision to walk away from players (and it was a hard decision because these were key contributors) to save cap. It hurts now, but the calculation was made that their careers are past their prime and aren't timed right with our core's peak. The plan, due to flat cap, is to take or lumps and then let our other bad choices expire in roussel, loui, etc... so another cap crunch. That means we intended to take a step back (or bottom out) this and next season potentially as part of this plan to set ourselves up to have cap to compete in the future. 

 

My question is: Do you still consider Miller part of the core? Is Miller's career arc trajectory in line with Petey, Hughes, Boeser, Bo? Will they all peak at the same time? Because that is key, to time our player's best years to coincide with each other.

 

Are we going to be a contender by the time Miller's contract is up when he's 30 two seasons later, do you extend him and hope his game doesn't fall apart as he ages?

 

Because if the answer to any of these questions is not a resounding yes. I think we need to make one more hard decision now for the future's sake and see if we can get value for Miller while he still has it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes,  I absolutely consider Miller to be a part of this core in 3 years.  Once his deal is nearing and end,  do you look at dealing him? Maybe.  More likely you extend him though.  He is over a ppg since we got him,  and only 30 when his deal

is up.  
 

no,  I would not deal him at this stage,  unless you get something that makes a ton of sense.  A prospect and a 1st is not that.

[Convincing John]

59 minutes ago, BCNate said:

That is where you are wrong though,  Benning had enough money to bring back Tanev and Markstrom to the deals they got from Calgary.  

Technically yes, he had the money to do so in the literal sense right now, Just enough, but one can also assume that their contracts on the open market aren’t necessarily what we could have paid. Mind you, when Jim pulls his pen out, bad things happen, we’d probably pay more. 

[combover]

It wasn’t a surprise , everyone should  have seen this coming. This team is a result of 7 years of cap mismanagement handcuffing us on resigning actual  pieces to build with.100% on Jb. 

hopefully this offseason it’ll be Jb leaving.the next gm will have  a serious mess to clean up. 

 

 

 

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, BCNate said:

Yes,  I absolutely consider Miller to be a part of this core in 3 years.  Once his deal is nearing and end,  do you look at dealing him? Maybe.  More likely you extend him though.  He is over a ppg since we got him,  and only 30 when his deal

is up.  
 

no,  I would not deal him at this stage,  unless you get something that makes a ton of sense.  A prospect and a 1st is not that.

I think this makes sense if Miller is not looking for a huge payday come his contract expiry. This is getting into the nitty gritty, but by then I'm not sure how much cap space we can afford. Since we also need to extend Bo.

 

This will depend heavily on how we re-structure our bottom 6 to be truly bottom 6 salaries. 

 

[BCNate]

2 minutes ago, DSVII said:

I think this makes sense if Miller is not looking for a huge payday come his contract expiry. This is getting into the nitty gritty, but by then I'm not sure how much cap space we can afford. Since we also need to extend Bo.

 

This will depend heavily on how we re-structure our bottom 6 to be truly bottom 6 salaries. 

 

By the time Miller is up for a new deal the cap will be on the rise again.  Bo already makes 5.5,  it’s not like the raise on his next deal will be huge.  I don’t think anyone would ever expect that he is much more than 7?

[IBatch]

This thread is two years too early.   Doubt all three contracts will age well, best odds 1/3.   Wonder how many lamenting over this season have taken into account how the team did with all five playing.   I'm glad the teams faults are getting exposed, they won't grow without it - how's "a much improved CAL" team doing anyways?   Even at equal money - without any cap issues - i'd have still let Stecher and Leivo go - we can do a lot better - and had to seriously think about Markstrom at equal salary and that term and clauses.  Tanev yes i do wish JB was able to shoe horn him in.  TT the most overrated player to dress up for a dozen so games that i recall ever. 

[oldnews]

The trajectory is as it should be.

No choice on Markstrom.

Toffoli - had some small sample impact last regular season but could barely skate in the playoffs...rental value hurts, but I'm fine with leaving spots for Hoglander (and Podkolzin to grow into).

I may have re-signed Tanev - very hard to see him and Marky go - but in the longer run I'll let go if the team manages to bring in the right young partner for Hughes.

I would have loved to bring back Leivo - particularly if they could have moved veteran wingers (Roussel, or possibly even Pearson).  If they can still move one or both and bank some cap, great.

Would have preferred to move Benn as well and bring back Fantenburg - but realistically, look at how little cap was moved in the offseason (even by teams perceived to be in extremely precarious positions - ie Tampa spent a 2nd to move Coburn and Paquette).   The reality of the market - was that movement was virtually nil.

The playoffs last year were great - gave the young players experience and a taste of what it takes to win in the postseason.  Not having to go into the playoffs after a long grind, were unusual circumstances that helped enable them to be at their best when it mattered.

This year - is precisely the opposite.  This imo is a season for veteran teams that can withstand the ridiculous grind/compact schedule.  Men typically start to reach their 'prime' of strength and stamina at/after age 25 - those years and years of accumulated play and training - are very beneficial.  The reality is that the present circumstances just are not conducive to success for 20, 21, 22 year olds - which is not to patronize them in the least - it's the simple, albeit general reality of physical development.

I'm not going to dwell on short term results.

The team looks extremely well positioned a few years from now when 39 million of cap will have cleared and many of these young guys will be be closer to their prime.

And it's a pleasure to see another group of young players - Hoglander, Juolevi and Demko step up - as well as some depth guys getting more opportunities - Mac, Chatfield...

I think there is likely to be another rookie or two integrate next season - and possibly the return of Tryamkin?   Lots to look forward to. Stay the course.

[kanucks25]

It's not necessarily about this past off-season or the specific pieces we lost from it.

 

Just that it's more drops in the bucket for this management group, some larger than others.

 

The dominos, the butterfly effect, death by a thousand cuts. Ignoring these and "looking at the bigger picture" and "having patience" puts a veil over real issues management has with planning, cap management, UFA strategy, etc.

 

I've never said that this core that Benning has put together isn't good enough to seriously contend at some point. I just don't think that Benning has the attention to detail or shrewdness to take us from "some nice pieces" to "legitimate contender".

[Provost]

I let Tanev and Markstrom walk and re-sign Stecher, Leivo, and hopefully Toffoli if we could have swung it.

 

That would have cost at most $8.275 million (their new deals) for 3 roster spots... assuming we couldn’t have swung a little better deal to keep them.

 

The money would have done from

- trading or not qualifying Jake

- not signing Hamonic 

- signing a cheaper backup to Demko 

- using an asset to move out a bad contract, or sending one out with money retained.

That is savings of:
=2.55+1.25+700k-3.00 depending on which goalie back up you go with 

=$4.55 - $6.8 million savings.

 

 

That means you have to still move out a couple million give  or take to sign those three guys.

 

Moving out any of Beagle, Roussel, Sutter, Baertschi, Benn... does that.

 

Say you can move out Beagle with 50% retained and Benn with a really minor sweetener like a late round pick end up with:

 

Miller-Petterson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-Toffoli

Pearson-Gaudette-MacEwan

Roussel-Sutter-Motte

 

Hughes-Schmidt 

Edler-Stecher

Juolevi-Myers 

 

Demko

Hutchison/Griess/Dell

 

 

That looks pretty spiffy (in comparison) to me.

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Provost

[CupIsComing]

Why did we have to let anybody "walk"?

The writing was on the wall for years (even before Covid) that a cap crunch would come. Management had to have known (the fans did) that they wouldn't be able to sign all the UFAs due to money.

Why weren't some of those players dealt in exchange for assets before the trade deadline? Certainly a near elite goalie and a stalwart Top 4 d-man could have got some decent returns. That would have allowed Nux to keep a couple of them.

I guess Hamhuis never was a lesson learned to this group after all.

 

[IBatch]

Without reading any of the replies - the ONLY guy i'd have brought back was Tanev - and not at the deal he got (maybe somewhere inbetween what JB offered and what CAL did  4 x 3).  

 

TT price was paid in full as a rental.   He's a career middle six player.   Not a star i'm sorry.   Tanev - he's a warrior who we can expect to play 55/60 games a year - put his time in as a Canuck and a leader in the locker room  - i'd have gone as far as 4 x 3 to keep him.  

 

Markstrom?  Hell no.   Bubble Demko made that a very easy decision.

 

Stetcher?  Too small - St. Louis after Myers was down and before put the puck down his side every time and we got exposed.   Love his heart but IMO we can only have one undersized defender and win come playoff time.   That's also a plug on Rathbone.   Sure maybe he's ok ... but i have my doubts out L side can work with skinny but average physically OJ with his injury history  - QHs and Rathbone.   ugh.

 

Leivo not worth a sentence really - Hoglander, Motte and even McEwen (we need one tough guy!) and Lind.

 

Said it before the off season - we should let all these guys walk - although Tanev would have been OK at the right price.  

 

So i answered great in the poll. Why?  JB got the best goalie available to push and relieve Demko.   Didn't for go after Lehner did he lol...a 3rd for Schmidt was an absolute fleecing.   

 

Now to brass tax.   We had ALL these guys last year.   Most needed raises and legacy contracts that take them to their twilight years - which aside from d's and some goalies (which makes for conversation at least ) is paying for past production - not including Leivo (ugh wasting words) and Stecher (what did he get again?)....We had all these guys and how did we actually do with them?  Not nearly good enough to commit 80 or so million ... not even close. 

 

JB has learned from his mistakes.  IMO this was arguably his best off season to date.   Why?  He gave the chance for this core to become something more then mediocre.   Those contacts are big anchors as a whole - not to mention the actual cost to dump money to make it work.   Think TT cost was high?  What did one year of Marleau cost?  We'd lose a first, Sutter and or Pearson this year and one or more of either Hoglander, Podz and JV - oh and Schmidt too.   Good grief.   JB had a great off season in comparison to the disaster it would have been to keep most of the team intact.    Demko would also be gone - and no way we'd get what we could without the ED looming ...

Edited March 3, 2021 by IBatch

[aGENT]

I think all the whinging over cap and who we let go (and the fallacy it was over cap) is hilarious.

 

Instead of Schmidt, Holtby and Hamonic, we could have had an oft injured, aging Tanev, LONG term, aging and getting more injured Markstrom and good, but small, Stecher. And we would've in turn been forced to lose Demko in the ED.

 

And you guys think you're pissed at Benning NOW. You'd be crucifying him for those moves lol.

 

Sorry, but I'll take keeping a good and continually improving Demko, adding Schmidt, Holtby and Hamonic over that any day. Short term consequences be damned.

 

Does anyone actually think that's a downgrade ESPECIALLY mid-long term?

 

Same with Toffoli. Has the team really 'lost' that much with bringing in Hoglander instead? Compare their stats. 

 

The biggest reasons this year has sucked is some regression from a few key, young players (and Miller) and nowhere near enough preseason, practice time or rest for all the new faces (compounded by an early track meet of a schedule). We also likely played a bit over our heads last year, raising expectations.

 

We're not as good as last year's 3 playoff round team or as bad as this year's basement team. And we're incredibly well positioned moving forward. So much melodrama 

Edited March 3, 2021 by aGENT