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

Calgary/Vancouver Evaluation - updated 3/29/21 - CAL TIED WITH VAN

Rate this topic


Dazzle
 Share

Recommended Posts

The OP is probably not the person to be pulling up old posts to show folks being wrong.

 

Something about Glass houses... throwing stones....

 

We are quite a bit worse than Calgary and Montreal.  We don’t get to be smarmy about anything.  With so few games played, the number of games in hand matter.  It is a huge gap when you account for that.

 

Also, it is tough to say Toffoli is a cause of Montreal having a losing stretch, he is providing great value for them.  Calgary’s problem isn’t Tanev or Markstrom... and not many folks argued we should match those contracts (especially in term) anyways.  Again, Tanev and Markstrom aren’t their problem.  Go look at Rittich and see how much better they are with Markstrom.

Edited by Provost
  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK i can solve this discussion.

 

Both the Flames and the Canucks suck this year.

 

Canucks will improve in the future though.....   Calgary Flames  are  going to sink into the swamp as their core  players are past their prime. 

Edited by kingofsurrey
  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Toffoli is playing really well for Montreal. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Even if Tanev and Markstrom aren't problematic players, they are still committing long term money for players that are older. Their risk increases from this point forward.

 

If you go into the thread, lots of people have argued for signing Tanev and Markstrom - had we not mismanaged the cap. It's a low hanging fruit to bash Benning.

Also, a lot of people who are wrong just refuse to admit it. Certain posters know who they are.

 

As for the games in hand gap, you can't just assume one team will win the difference of games, while assuming Vancouver will lose all theirs. That is the epitome of irrational. It's a POSSIBLE scenario, but given the downward trend of all three teams, it's more likely that all three teams aren't playoff teams. Thus, making the offseason of Benning an actual win, rather than a loss.

 

Look at Ottawa - they've started to catch fire after winning five games in a row.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

 flames are almost as bad as us but they have 10.5 mill cap locked up with tanev for 3.5 yrs and  marky 5.5 yrs  ouch  thats bad 

They have been 2 of their best players.   Btw Myers and Tanev are born less than 2 months apart and both have 3.5 years left on their deal but Myers makes 1.5M more.  

 

When Benning signed Ryan Miller at age 34 to a 3 year x 6M contract that brought him to age 37, he explained that he was confident he would perform because goalies can play longer.  If he is correct, then Markstrom signed to the same age as Miller shouldn’t be an issue for Calgary.  Unlike Vancouver they didn’t have a young goalie pushing for the starter’s net.

  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Toffoli is playing really well for Montreal. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Even if Tanev and Markstrom aren't problematic players, they are still committing long term money for players that are older. Their risk increases from this point forward.

 

If you go into the thread, lots of people have argued for signing Tanev and Markstrom - had we not mismanaged the cap. It's a low hanging fruit to bash Benning.

Also, a lot of people who are wrong just refuse to admit it. Certain posters know who they are.

No, it isn't.  He's always been a good player and we should have signed him over Virtanen.  That much was obvious from the minute Toffoli arrived and clicked with Horvat and Pearson, especially so since we traded some valuable assets to get him.

 

Ok and that's true for technically every player that signs a multi-term deal because that's how age works.  Like I said earlier, committing term and money to a high-end starting goaltender and #2 defenceman is a better gamble than 4th line players (Beagle, Roussel, Sutter, etc).

 

Well, unluckily for those people, we didn't even have the money to offer them because of horrible cap management in previous years.  The blame that Benning gets has little to do with who he didn't re-sign in this past off-season and a lot more to do with that fact that he handed term and money to nothing players in previous free-agent windows.  It's well justified and far from low-hanging fruit.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

No, it isn't.  He's always been a good player and we should have signed him over Virtanen.  That much was obvious from the minute Toffoli arrived and clicked with Horvat and Pearson, especially so since we traded some valuable assets to get him.

 

Ok and that's true for technically every player that signs a multi-term deal because that's how age works.  Like I said earlier, committing term and money to a high-end starting goaltender and #2 defenceman is a better gamble than 4th line players (Beagle, Roussel, Sutter, etc).

 

Well, unluckily for those people, we didn't even have the money to offer them because of horrible cap management in previous years.  The blame that Benning gets has little to do with who he didn't re-sign in this past off-season and a lot more to do with that fact that he handed term and money to nothing players in previous free-agent windows.  It's well justified and far from low-hanging fruit.

Seems like selective criticism to me. Beagle had freshly won a cup when he arrived, yet he and Sutter tend to get a lot of flak for being bottom 6 players. Sutter had 20 goals at one point - not really a "nothing player".

 

The blame should be on Benning for keeping these bad coaches though.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Provost said:

No active GM has as bad a record and kept their job as long as Benning.

Verifiable fact.

 

 

 

 

Yet Buffalo has had 3 GM's during Bennings tenure, and are probably farther away from winning a cup. Despite a 1st overall pick and 8 top 10 picks. 

And Buffalo has had no playoff games since 2011, and Buffalo is closing in on one decade since making the playoffs. 

 

 

  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

Calgary will go as far as Markstrom can take them over the duration of his contract, but despite their top players being in their prime they look like a team in no man's land. I'm glad we didn't hand out those contracts to Marky and Tanev, despite appreciating their play as Canucks. 

 

I do believe this roster has more to give, but the current coaching staff won't get it out of them. Here's hoping we enter next season with new coaching staff. 

And yet Calgary's scored even less than Ottawa. Our defense was in shambles to begin the season, despite looking solid on paper. Some of it's on the players, but some of it's also on the coaching staff.

 

It's like each line has 1 or 2 set plays that they are obviously not to diverge from.

 

Last game, there was a stretch where Quinn was absolutely dominating in the O zone and looked fantastic.

 

He didn't play much iirc the rest of the game..

 

 

Its one thing losing a long time goalie, another d partner in Tanev and also Fantenberg who does not get enough credit( he was impressive) Stecher also was here for a few years, his hustle is missed.

 

 

With a goalie and d partners experience playing with one another and understanding the habits of strong and weak attributes.

 

Also having a few new faces and very little time to "gel" as a core. I feel alot has to do with familiarity and the defensive system by greener and baumer.

 

Myers 2nd year 

hughes 2nd ish 

Schmidt 1st

Benn 2nd

OJ 1st

Chatfield 1st

Hamonic 1st

 

I'm not a fan of the way the canucks defend and allow play to the outside with lots of shots against.

 

I prefer the aggressive style more, not necessarily hitting and fighting but more closing the distance, chasing down and retrieve the puck and move it out to the neutral zone then into offense, basically never let the opposition have any time or space to set up etc.

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Seems like selective criticism to me. Beagle had freshly won a cup when he arrived, yet he and Sutter tend to get a lot of flak for being bottom 6 players. Sutter had 20 goals at one point - not really a "nothing player".

 

The blame should be on Benning for keeping these bad coaches though.

Luke Schenn also just won the cup.  Should we have given him 4 x 3M if he hit free-agency?  Patrick Maroon just won 2 straight cups.  DOUBLE WINNER!  Maybe he was in line for a 8 x 6M contract???  Do you see the fallacy with this logic and why it doesn't make sense to pay for marginal players?

 

As for Sutter, I don't think it's a coincidence that as soon as he gets moved - for an upgrade in Bonino I might add - Pittsburgh goes on to win 2 straight cups themselves.  Correlation =/= causation?  Maybe but you can't deny that it truly does makes one wonder...

 

As for the last part, what in the hell do coaches have to do with anything? You keep pushing this propaganda about Green being the problem.  Where was all this last year? And the previous two seasons?  I certainly don't remember any criticisms from you then during those times.  So why now?  But on topic, are you actually trying to argue that a new coach would waltz in here and suddenly make Virtanen, Beagle, Sutter, etc all decent players?  Coaches might put players in better positions to succeed, but they will never make players perform better than their existing abilities.  Not possible.

 

Aside from all this, I have to ask from a place of concern, do you even know what you're arguing anymore?  Like this thread, the one about Jake from a few days ago (thanks for the free comedy, btw!), they're all not-so-thinly veiled attempts to essentially protect Benning.  You do realize we had some happy memories before Benning and we have potential for a happy future once he goes.  I promise you it will all be okay without Lord Jim.  I really do.   

 

You don't need to go all out to protect this guy to the extent you do.  People like myself aren't "haters".  We are fans who want a change after 7 years of failure.  That's normal.

 

40 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Detroit, Ottawa and Buffalo have had issues on a multitude of levels.

 

And the Canucks had nothing in the reserves with regards to prospects.

Canucks had "nothing"... except their future captain and the starting goalie who basically dragged them into a playoff berth, despite an average team in front of him.  Keeping in mind, it's been seven years since the GM was brought in, where he has had 7 drafts and the potential of 49+ picks to have made a difference.

Edited by Alain Vigneault
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fanfor42 said:

Who has the brighter future ?  Vancouver has a great young core, several pieces coming, several more in the minors, a likely top ten pick coming and big money freeing up.

 

I like this team's chances in the next couple years versus stale franchises like Calgary or whacky Mtl.

 

Having said that I think Green loses his job this off season and I think that is the right decision.

 

I am also looking forward to returning to the traditional division and conference formats.  We will have 3 cali teams plus calgary in our division which gives us a real good chance at playoffs next year and for a few to come.

I think this piece is rather significant honestly. LA looks to be trending up, but I'd rather play them, Anaheim, and San Jose more regularly than Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto. LA has some pieces from their high end days still, but they're not the team they were. We should be better than them. San Jose is staying afloat, but you've gotta wonder how long it'll be before they actually commit to a rebuild. Anaheim's been idling since the mid to late 2010's, we should be better than them too. Count Calgary in as well as you've said and we've got a legit shot at the playoffs if we can win most of our divisional games. 

 

For whatever reason, coaching or otherwise, we just haven't matched up well against Toronto and Montreal this season. But even then, I feel that's overblown a bit. If our D during the early stretch of the season resembled even what we've seen over the last stretch (both good and bad) we'd likely have won a few more games. 

 

Get some better coaching staff, another offseason of training and growth for our young core, and some injury luck and we're probably primed for a better outing next season. 

2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

This is exactly it, and people have been talking about Sutter and Roussell being signed for too long - yet they were under 30 when signed.

 

The amount of hypocrisy in the fanbase is amusing. Bashing a GM for not committing long term money, but bashing the same GM for long term contracts that anchor a roster.

It's a weird bit, people will fuss about guys like Sutter and Rouss but at least they were both prime aged when signed. It's easy to point back at signings through the lens of a rearview mirror. Rouss was full value during his first season, brought the game he'd been playing in Dallas for a few years. Hasn't been the same since his knee injury. I think Sutter was expected to maybe step into a 2c role, it didn't happen but he's been an adequate 3c. 

 

Why fuss about tenure and dead cap and then fuss about not extending vets to term and larger dollars? Maybe a Tanev helps us keep some more pucks out of our net, maybe a Marky does too. But even if we'd kept them both I don't think it'd have mattered with the coaching staff in place.

 

Think of it this way. If it took Vezina caliber goaltending from Markstrom, career high seasons for some of our offensive players, and a miraculous season of full health from Tanev (his first ever during his tenure as a Canuck) to help us barely scrape into the qualifying round of the playoffs we've clearly got some elephants in the room. 

1 hour ago, Provost said:

 

The numbers look pretty damning, no doubt. But that's also the Canucks in a post-Gillis wasteland with few prospects of note in the system and two aging franchise players propping the team up offensively. One could argue our rebuild was delayed to try and help squeeze the last dregs out of the twins, which resulted in signings of guys like Eriksson and Vrbata. 

39 minutes ago, GhostsOf1994 said:

 

It's like each line has 1 or 2 set plays that they are obviously not to diverge from.

 

Last game, there was a stretch where Quinn was absolutely dominating in the O zone and looked fantastic.

 

He didn't play much iirc the rest of the game..

 

 

Its one thing losing a long time goalie, another d partner in Tanev and also Fantenberg who does not get enough credit( he was impressive) Stecher also was here for a few years, his hustle is missed.

 

 

With a goalie and d partners experience playing with one another and understanding the habits of strong and weak attributes.

 

Also having a few new faces and very little time to "gel" as a core. I feel alot has to do with familiarity and the defensive system by greener and baumer.

 

Myers 2nd year 

hughes 2nd ish 

Schmidt 1st

Benn 2nd

OJ 1st

Chatfield 1st

Hamonic 1st

 

I'm not a fan of the way the canucks defend and allow play to the outside with lots of shots against.

 

I prefer the aggressive style more, not necessarily hitting and fighting but more closing the distance, chasing down and retrieve the puck and move it out to the neutral zone then into offense, basically never let the opposition have any time or space to set up etc.

 

I dunno, given the guys we've got on those top two lines I just expect more creativity, particularly on the powerplay. We've got some guys with some serious high end skill in our lineup, but too often they struggle to just gain the zone on the powerplay or at even strength. And yeah, you've got credit the guys playing for other teams as well, but still. It's frustrating to watch. 

 

Green has his good points, he seems to have had a hand in allowing our top end talent to flourish, but I wonder how much is the players and not the coaching staff. I'd be interested in seeing what he could do with different assistants but he's likely going to be allowed to walk and that's fine too. 

 

Fanta was underrated, I'm still surprised he couldn't catch on with an NHL team. I was fine letting Tanev walk, we miss what he brought but I don't like that contract. Part of it was the role we expected him to play, but he had a hard time staying healthy. That being said, Salo had a hard time staying healthy too but he brought more to both ends of the ice than Tanev ever did while bringing a similar stabilizing effect to our D. I really miss Salo, we haven't had someone who's a legit threat from the point since. 

 

Hughes is young, he's a gamebreaking offensive player but his not being rock solid at NHL defense isn't unexpected from a sophomore. I've actually liked Myers this season, he's been one of our better D imo. Him and Edler are the only two who bring the toolbox of being able to capably play harder minutes, the ability and willingness to play physical, offensive capability, a willingness to push back. We'll miss what he brings if Seattle takes him imo. Schmidt's improved as the season has gone on, piling on a guy during his first season with a new team is dumb. OJ's been a breath of fresh air, I look forward to seeing what kind of player he develops into as he's off to a good start. Chatfield showed promise in a small sample size but got lambasted after a couple of particularly rough games for the team, he could be a 6-8D yet. Hamonic needs to be taken with a grain of salt as he hadn't played in forever and then went down to injury after stepping in with no camp, dude hadn't played NHL hockey since prior to last season's playoffs, but I've really liked his game as of late. 

 

I don't like how they withdraw to the middle of the ice either, the result is that the other team looks like they're on a powerplay more often than not in our zone and I hate it. Sure, some of the shots from the outside shouldn't be overly dangerous but I'm not a fan of passive in-zone play at even strength. 

Edited by Coconuts
  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I predicted the team this season would be about 5th in the North Division but they could end up being 6th. Unlike most CDCers, I wasn't overly impressed with last season because our number of shots against was atrocious on most nights.  That's not a sign of a contender or even a strong playoff team.  We squeaked into the playoffs and Marky was spectacular most nights last season and into the playoffs.  However, it doesn't mean I wasn't super happy with our playoff run - it was great.

 

I thought Montreal picked up some really good players in the off season and I'd be surprised if they continue to fall in the standings.  Obviously, the Leafs are loaded with talent and they are a cup contender.  Winnipeg seems a pretty solid third place team but we'll see how the season unfolds.  I'd be surprised if Marky and Tanev don't help turn things around in Calgary but I think they will be battling with Edmonton for the last playoff spot.

 

With the loss of Marky, Tanev, Toffoli and Stecher, I thought our team was considerably weaker but I was hoping for the best when we acquired Schmidt and Hamonic.  They're OK and we should be stronger next year.  The real good news is Hoglander was a pleasant surprise but he needs a year or so to reach his potential.  Juolevi is definitely trending in the right direction.  Demko looks like our future starter (he looks real good).  We're not quite there but our young core are good and we could be a contender in about two years or so.

 

I was disappointed to lose Toffoli and the assets we gave up in that trade.  I'm still positive though with Podz coming in and Rathbone soon (maybe Lind too).  Maybe we can make some trades and acquire more assets (younger players or picks) before the season ends.  The future still looks bright.

Edited by sockeye
  • Like 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Have they been signed for 6M? Is Beagle signed for 6M? As Provost likes to say, these hypothetical scenarios do little but to create a strawman argument.

LOL. the Bonino suggestion as being THE major factor for a cup is hilarious. Of course you'll go that route.

 

I've largely been silent about bashing anyone really. The coach thing was more noticeable last year, but then it's amplified this year. That's my angle on it. St. Louis is an extreme example with Berube. They were initially at the bottom of the standings, but somehow won a cup. Correlation =/= Causation? Maybe but you can't deny that it truly does makes one wonder... See what I did there?

 

You've been consistently against Benning - that much is obvious. Whenever there's an anti-Benning thread, you're right there. I don't even have to pull out many threads to point this out.

 

Answer this: Did Gillis draft or develop any playeres that are still on the roster? Horvat is one... and?

The point is that it's not an excuse to sign 4th line players for crazy amounts.

 

As for St. Louis, yes, you're right, it is an extreme example because 1) it doesn't account for the fact that St. Louis had brought in O'Reilly during the summer and thus improved their team over the off-season and 2) also rode Binnington - a goalie that nobody had a book on - all the way to the summit.  At most, Berube put players into better positions to succeed.  He didn't suddenly make the players play better.  He was doing what Mike Yeo was supposed to do.  When you compare it to our team, we got worse over the off-season and we were never a great team to begin with.  Firing Green is futile for that reason.

 

Why are you bringing up Gillis?  My original point was that it was wrong to suggest Benning inherited "nothing" as he quite literally inherited his future captain and starting goaltender that brought him his most success here.  This isn't a Gillis vs Benning thing, it's a statement of facts.

  • Hydration 2
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...