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

[Dazzle]

3 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Unless he kept Markstrom and then traded Demko for something valuable that couldn't be exposed in the draft.

 

But there's never been any sort of creativity with this management group so who knows if a scenario like that even crossed their minds.

Everyone knows about the expansion draft. What makes you think teams would've given up a blue chip prospect that they didn't have to protect, versus an asset that they would have to?

[khay]

8 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

"Exposed" only in name.  By committing money and term to Markstrom, what would they need Demko for?  Team would have 100% moved him before the expansion draft and acquired a different goalie (i.e Domingue tier) to expose.  Don't be naive.

 

It was factually wrong for Dazzle to say that Benning inherited "nothing".

Oh I see. It's not nothing but very little. Was that your point?

 

Because Benning did inherit very little.

Edit: You are not wrong. Gillis got us Horvat, Markstrom, and Tanev. Edler was also inherited (although Edler is from Burke/Nonis).

Edited March 4, 2021 by khay

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Everyone knows about the expansion draft. What makes you think teams would've given up a blue chip prospect that they didn't have to protect, versus an asset that they would have to?

Because young, potential starting goalies don't grow on trees.  Besides, foolish of you to even mention this type of scenario because everybody knew Tampa Bay was cap-strapped and yet Jim Benning still paid a 1st for J.T. Miller.

 

2 minutes ago, khay said:

Oh I see. It's not nothing but very little. Was that your point?

 

Because Benning did inherit very little.

Ok.  Thank you for your feedback.

[Dazzle]

13 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

"Exposed" only in name.  By committing money and term to Markstrom, what would they need Demko for?  Team would have 100% moved him before the expansion draft and acquired a different goalie (i.e Domingue tier) to expose.  Don't be naive.

 

It was factually wrong for Dazzle to say that Benning inherited "nothing".

Really? So what if the team declines this year, even with Markstrom? Can you imagine committing so much money for an aged goalie for a team that isn't necessarily ready for a push.

 

Benning did inherit nothing - at least nothing of substantial value. If you and I could get first round picks for every single player that Gillis left behind, you think the GMs would've done it? No, the value they were offered for the pieces were either very poor or not even offered at all.

 

There seems to be an assumption that Benning (or whoever the GM was going to be) would've gotten 'full' value for any of the players. Kesler was kind of a tip of the iceberg. Vancouver was never going to properly rebuild with the assets Gillis left behind. As you've failed to address, Gillis had next to no prospects in the pipeline. Did we have a Hoglander in our system? What about Linus Karlsson? What about Gaudette? What about Arvid Costmar? None of these players are first round picks. I haven't even mentioned Lind, Gadj and Woo - all three who are doing really well in the AHL.

 

The amount of prospects in our system RIGHT NOW are a night and day difference between the two regimes.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Dazzle

[AV.]

13 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Really? So what if the team declines this year, even with Markstrom? Can you imagine committing so much money for an aged goalie for a team that isn't necessarily ready for a push.

 

Benning did inherit nothing - at least nothing of substantial value. If you and I could get first round picks for every single player that Gillis left behind, you think the GMs would've done it? No, the value they were offered for the pieces were either very poor or not even offered at all.

 

There seems to be an assumption that Benning (or whoever the GM was going to be) would've gotten 'full' value for any of the players. Kesler was kind of a tip of the iceberg. Vancouver was never going to properly rebuild with the assets Gillis left behind. As you've failed to address, Gillis had next to no prospects in the pipeline. Did we have a Hoglander in our system? What about Linus Karlsson? What about Gaudette? What about Arvid Costmar? None of these players are first round picks. I haven't even mentioned Lind, Gadj and Woo - all three who are doing really well in the AHL.

If the team declined with Markstrom, then Green and co would be fired, just like Julien and co were fired.  Would there be outrage?  Probably not, maybe from some Demko stans but everybody knew Markstrom was legit.  Nobody is really outraged at EP for taking a step back (well, a step back by his standards) this year so I don't imagine they would be with Markstrom.

 

Lol, again with bringing up Gillis.  It's unhealthy now, you have to let it go.  Anyways, what are these prospects supposed to mean to me?  Like, sure they have value and potential but they hold the exact same type of value and potential that the previous regime's prospects had.  Hoglander (who I admire a lot tbf) is basically this regime's Schroeder and is far from proven, Gaudette is the Corrado equivalent (in and out of the lineup).  Making the NHL is one thing but sustaining their place in the lineup and improving is another.

 

Let me ask you, if Jim Benning gets fired tomorrow and all of these prospects you've listed go on to bust, would you say the new GM had nothing to work with?  If you don't, then you're basically rendered your argument useless.

 

Hope this helps.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Alain Vigneault

[Dazzle]

14 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Because young, potential starting goalies don't grow on trees.  Besides, foolish of you to even mention this type of scenario because everybody knew Tampa Bay was cap-strapped and yet Jim Benning still paid a 1st for J.T. Miller.

 

Ok.  Thank you for your feedback.

So what about the Gillis + 1st for Ballard trade?

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/ballard-traded-to-canucks-in-five-player-swap/c-532776

 

But Ballard, a first-round pick back in 2002, was due $4.2 million in each of the next five seasons and Tallon is trying to remake the team with younger talent. Earlier this week, he moved forwards Nathan Horton and Gregory Campbell to the Boston Bruins in exchange for defenseman Dennis Wideman, the No. 15 pick this year, and a third-round pick in 2011.

 

https://www.litterboxcats.com/2010/6/26/1538249/the-ballad-of-keith-ballard-victim

 

Last year Ballard sank with the rest of his troops; simply from an observer's post he never appeared comfortable. Strange, given the monster contract and all. Regardless, he was not the same player Martin had acquired. Still had the hits, kept up the physical stuff, but he was never again the guy Panthers fans fell in love with a season earlier. Almost like your hands gripped the seat/beer/remote control a little heavier when he hit the ice, hoping for the best.

Ultimately he was a "Martin" guy, and that may well have been his undoing in SoFla. Rather jarring that Tallon would deal this guy away, a dood who (publicly) espoused a rah-rah, it's-all-about-the-team persona. Jarring, but refreshing as well.

The caveat? We'll miss his presence. Not to the point that games will be lost due to his absence, but he was simply a decent guy. Ballard will do fine in LuongoLand. Another "change of scenery" situation, just unfortunate it didn't happen in Sunrise. He's a genuinely nice guy with killer instincts coming off a bad year. All the best to him.

 

Hard to justify this trade, even at the time. I was ALWAYS against this trade. Throwing away the first for a cap dump was really bad.

 

At the same time, J.T. Miller was a center that we did not have. We lost one asset, as opposed to two. I do not think it's hard to determine which trade was worth it or not.

 

Also, Ballard did get bought out. Ouch. Hope that helps.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

6 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

If the team declined with Markstrom, then Green and co would be fired, just like Julien and co were fired.  Would there be outrage?  Probably not, maybe from some Demko stans but everybody knew Markstrom was legit.  Nobody is really outraged at EP for taking a step back (well, a step back by his standards) this year so I don't imagine they would be with Markstrom.

 

Lol, again with bringing up Gillis.  It's unhealthy now, you have to let it go.  Anyways, what are these prospects supposed to mean to me?  Like, sure they have value and potential but they hold the exact same type of value and potential that the previous regime's prospects had.  Hoglander (who I admire a lot tbf) is basically this regime's Schroeder and is far from proven, Gaudette is the Corrado equivalent (in and out of the lineup).  Making the NHL is one thing but sustaining their place in the lineup and improving is another.

 

Let me ask you, if Jim Benning gets fired tomorrow and all of these prospects you've listed go on to bust, would you say the new GM had nothing to work with?  If you do, then you're basically rendered your argument useless.

 

Hope this helps.

No, because I already told you the depth of this team is much better than what GIllis left with.

 

"Hope this helps".

 

Your refusal to see the evidence is alarming. The reason I bring up Gillis was that he's the predecessor that we can compare the performance of each GM. Is it useful at all to compare Benning with the GM of Tampa Bay? NO. Tampa Bay has always had drafting success. We did not. Apples and oranges.

 

When looking at cars, do you look at the HP of a minivan vs a Corvette? And then say, "Oh, obviously the Corvette is better." Never mind the fact that the car is meant for a suburban mom who doesn't need the HP - and the Corvette doesn't do the job that she wants, which is to take her kids to soccer practice.

 

Apples and oranges.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Dazzle

[AK_19]

8 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I'm really not moving goalposts at all.

 

Well, that's funny you say "see, this is why." Because none of us - everyone really - has the ability to see the future. We don't know if a decision is any good until we see the results after it. For example, if we chose Pettersson in 2017 and he turned out to be a bust, can you imagine the backlash on here?

 

I don't think Tanev's contract is terrible either. So really, the decision was between Tanev and Toffoli. But we also have to keep in mind the expansion draft.

 

2. You know what? I agree with part of your points. I would've liked to see the Canucks try out new coaches this year. That being said, why does he have to shell out a couple of million extra to sign some coaches that he hasn't an interview process with?

As an owner, you don't want to burn money, which Benning has done plenty of. I think if you look at it from this perspective, you wouldn't want to pay coaches to leave. I think it's awfully generous to expect people to pay for $&!# that you probably wouldn't pay for yourself. Imagine throwing away 1 million dollars for nothing.

1. We would've been fine with expansion draft for Dmen. Our dmen are: Hughes, Edler, Tanev, Schmidt, Myers, and Joulevi. Hughes is exempt, Edler's contract expires leaving us with Myers, Schmidt, Joulevi, and Tanev and three protection spots. Myers is overpaid and unlikely to be picked so you expose him. Even if they do pick him, I'd say that would actually help us out long-term. I'm okay with a top 4 of Edler-Schmidt and Hughes-Tanev and cutting costs on our bottom pairing just as Hughes ELC expires. Since we did lose Tanev, we should be getting good trade offers for dmen that other teams can't protect since we've got a spare slot. Because of salary cap issues I wouldn't want Toffoli if only because we have the prospects to fill in for those positions (Podkolzin/Hoglander/Lind/etc). My personal philosophy is that wingers (outside of the elite) don't influence results as much as dmen and centres. 

 

2. Honestly, who cares if FA loses a few million? It's not our money. As long as it doesn't affect salary cap I don't have much sympathy for billionaires to begin with. A million to us is different than for him. A million is like 0.05% of his net worth (his net worth is apparently 3.3 billion).  Regardless, it's short term thinking though to not spend to improve your team. That's how you end up as the Ottawa Senators and Phoenix Coyotes in present times. I've always defended FA before because he was willing to spend what it took to win. Something clearly changed when he divorced in terms of spending on the Canucks. Writing off the season and preparing for the next is what we should be doing but aren't. With that being said, Benning has lost him a significant amount of money. I believe we've got to be amongst the league's highest salaries being paid to not play on the team. My professional networks that are employed with the team mentioned there was a blowout between FA and Benning with the Ferland contract. Apparently the reason Ferland's contract was cheaper than expected (rumours he would be getting 5mil+) was due to it being an uninsurable contract. FA wasn't advised of this before the signing.

[Davathor]

 

[canuktravella]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

It's not Tanev's fault that you only have a very basic understanding of the game and what makes a player valuable, especially in the modern NHL.

 i guess thats why flames miss playoffs ehh 

[Dazzle]

11 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

1. We would've been fine with expansion draft for Dmen. Our dmen are: Hughes, Edler, Tanev, Schmidt, Myers, and Joulevi. Hughes is exempt, Edler's contract expires leaving us with Myers, Schmidt, Joulevi, and Tanev and three protection spots. Myers is overpaid and unlikely to be picked so you expose him. Even if they do pick him, I'd say that would actually help us out long-term. I'm okay with a top 4 of Edler-Schmidt and Hughes-Tanev and cutting costs on our bottom pairing just as Hughes ELC expires. Since we did lose Tanev, we should be getting good trade offers for dmen that other teams can't protect since we've got a spare slot. Because of salary cap issues I wouldn't want Toffoli if only because we have the prospects to fill in for those positions (Podkolzin/Hoglander/Lind/etc). My personal philosophy is that wingers (outside of the elite) don't influence results as much as dmen and centres. 

 

2. Honestly, who cares if FA loses a few million? It's not our money. As long as it doesn't affect salary cap I don't have much sympathy for billionaires to begin with. A million to us is different than for him. A million is like 0.05% of his net worth (his net worth is apparently 3.3 billion).  Regardless, it's short term thinking though to not spend to improve your team. That's how you end up as the Ottawa Senators and Phoenix Coyotes in present times. I've always defended FA before because he was willing to spend what it took to win. Something clearly changed when he divorced in terms of spending on the Canucks. Writing off the season and preparing for the next is what we should be doing but aren't. With that being said, Benning has lost him a significant amount of money. I believe we've got to be amongst the league's highest salaries being paid to not play on the team. My professional networks that are employed with the team mentioned there was a blowout between FA and Benning with the Ferland contract. Apparently the reason Ferland's contract was cheaper than expected (rumours he would be getting 5mil+) was due to it being an uninsurable contract. FA wasn't advised of this before the signing.

1. It's not clear if Tanev would've wanted a NMC (to prevent expansion), if so, that means we'd use a spot for him. He did acquire a NTC though. Juolevi is a first round round pick - not sure if he would've been exempt though. I agree, defensively wise, we would've been okay. I think signing Tanev might have been the only correct move Benning should've done.

 

I'm still not convinced that Tanev would've stopped our bleeding this season. There's only so much one person can do.

 

Coaching has always been an issue - and I began to see more and more this last playoffs. I will maintain that coaching should've been changed. Specifically Baumer. He sucks. Benning should've changed this dude.

 

2. And as soon as you said "It's not our money" - that's where your argument falls apart. Until you're actually an owner and you're paying for $&!#, you don't want to throw away money, all to satisfy a bunch of CDCers who aren't attending games. There is no revenue, so the owner has to be smart with finances.

 

I don't know anything about Ferland's situation to comment.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Dazzle

[AV.]

9 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

So what about the Gillis + 1st for Ballard trade?

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/ballard-traded-to-canucks-in-five-player-swap/c-532776

 

But Ballard, a first-round pick back in 2002, was due $4.2 million in each of the next five seasons and Tallon is trying to remake the team with younger talent. Earlier this week, he moved forwards Nathan Horton and Gregory Campbell to the Boston Bruins in exchange for defenseman Dennis Wideman, the No. 15 pick this year, and a third-round pick in 2011.

 

https://www.litterboxcats.com/2010/6/26/1538249/the-ballad-of-keith-ballard-victim

 

Last year Ballard sank with the rest of his troops; simply from an observer's post he never appeared comfortable. Strange, given the monster contract and all. Regardless, he was not the same player Martin had acquired. Still had the hits, kept up the physical stuff, but he was never again the guy Panthers fans fell in love with a season earlier. Almost like your hands gripped the seat/beer/remote control a little heavier when he hit the ice, hoping for the best.

Ultimately he was a "Martin" guy, and that may well have been his undoing in SoFla. Rather jarring that Tallon would deal this guy away, a dood who (publicly) espoused a rah-rah, it's-all-about-the-team persona. Jarring, but refreshing as well.

The caveat? We'll miss his presence. Not to the point that games will be lost due to his absence, but he was simply a decent guy. Ballard will do fine in LuongoLand. Another "change of scenery" situation, just unfortunate it didn't happen in Sunrise. He's a genuinely nice guy with killer instincts coming off a bad year. All the best to him.

 

Hard to justify this trade, even at the time. I was ALWAYS against this trade. Throwing away the first for a cap dump was really bad.

 

At the same time, J.T. Miller was a center that we did not have. We lost one asset, as opposed to two. I do not think it's hard to determine which trade was worth it or not.

 

Also, Ballard did get bought out. Ouch. Hope that helps.

 

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

No, because I already told you the depth of this team is much better than what GIllis left with.

 

"Hope this helps".

 

Your refusal to see the evidence is alarming. The reason I bring up Gillis was that he's the predecessor that we can compare the performance of each GM. Is it useful at all to compare Benning with the GM of Tampa Bay? NO. Tampa Bay has always had drafting success. We did not. Apples and oranges.

 

When looking at cars, do you look at the HP of a minivan vs a Corvette? And then say, "Oh, obviously the Corvette is better." Never mind the fact that the car is meant for a suburban mom who doesn't need the HP - and the Corvette doesn't do the job that she wants, which is to take her kids to soccer practice.

 

Apples and oranges.

The Canucks were a legitimate playoff contender when they traded a 1st for Ballard.  In the season they got Ballard, they won a President's trophy and went to the cup finals.  The following year, they won the President's trophy again.

 

The Canucks were a legitimate basement team when they traded a 1st for Miller.  In the season they got Miller, they got bailed out by COVID which allowed them to participate in a uniquely structured playoff format that included non-playoff teams.  The following year, they became a basement team again.

 

Some notes:

-  While Miller takes occasional faceoffs during the games, he's a not a C on this team.  He's a winger.  He's consistently listed a winger in Canucks gameday graphics and in line rushes tweeted by journalists and reporters who cover the team.

-  You've (wilfully?) missed the point on Tampa Bay.  I have not compared our drafting to their drafting.  I'm not even sure how your arrived to that.  Like, at all.  My point was about us trading them full value for their player despite everybody knowing they were in cap trouble.  I said this because you made some foolish point about nobody paying anything for Demko in light of the expansion draft rules.

 

At this point, you need more than just "hope" for helping your case.  Hate to see it.

[canuktravella]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

Tavares  $11 mill for 4 more years NMC 

Loui           $6 mill for  1 more year M-NTC

Tanev is more than a shot blocker, arguably the best shut down d man the Canucks ever had. 

I still wouldn't give him the contract Calgary did though.

 sorry mitchell  ohlund  salo  were much better shutdown guys  tanev barely played in 2011 cup run and hes  done little or nothing in ten yrs here 

[canuktravella]

2 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

 sorry mitchell  ohlund  salo  were much better shutdown guys  tanev barely played in 2011 cup run and hes  done little or nothing in ten yrs here 

edler is a better shutdown d than tanev is as well its not even close

[kanucks25]

5 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

 i guess thats why flames miss playoffs ehh 

So Flames miss playoffs because of Tanev? He's arguably been their most steady/consistent/reliable D-man (which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here).

 

We're going to miss the playoffs after adding Schmidt. Does that mean Schmidt is a bad player on a bad contract?

 

Please, a little common sense.

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

He's arguably been their most steady/consistent/reliable D-man (which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here).

I said something very close to that, and I got an argument. lol.

[canuktravella]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

So Flames miss playoffs because of Tanev? He's arguably been their most steady/consistent/reliable D-man (which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here).

 

We're going to miss the playoffs after adding Schmidt. Does that mean Schmidt is a bad player on a bad contract?

 

Please, a little common sense.

stop overrating ex canuck players hes just not that good a dman  yes he can block a shot  what has he done in his career  thats exceptional nothing  hes not worth 4.5 mill a yr at the moment and hes def not worth 4.5 mill in 2023

[canuktravella]

Just now, canuktravella said:

stop overrating ex canuck players hes just not that good a dman  yes he can block a shot  what has he done in his career  thats exceptional nothing  hes not worth 4.5 mill a yr at the moment and hes def not worth 4.5 mill in 2023

 tanevs career as a canuck other than 2011-2012 yrs  might have been canucks worst 9 yrs ever for losses

[canuktravella]

Just now, canuktravella said:

 tanevs career as a canuck other than 2011-2012 yrs  might have been canucks worst 9 yrs ever for losses

were they even this bad in 70s 

[canuktravella]

brent sopel was a allstar compared to tanev