Jim Benning's mid-season press conference

[Josepho]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So you've got me curious... whats your definition of sheltered minutes? 

 

1 hour ago, Junkyard Dog said:

5 goals against averaging 13:12(12:17 at even-strength) a game in 5 games. And he’s been on the ice for 8 goals for making him a +3. 

 

2nd in blocks per 60 behind Edler. So far he’s yet to take a penalty. 

 

When OJ’s on the ice goalies have a 95% save percentage at even-strength. That happens to be best on the team and much much greater than the 28th place team average of 90.8%. 
 

I would say stating he’s been okay and very likely to pan out as a bottom 6 guy, when the fact of the matter is this is his rookie season, he’s already performing as a good bottom pair guy out of the gate and when his numbers prove otherwise, is a little short-sighted with all due respect.
 

Especially when he’s done this while most of the team has been garbage around him for a lot of it. 

 

With that sort of logic are we gonna right off Lind and Gadjovich who’ve taken big steps just because they 23 this year? Or the 1st year pro Lockwood who’s also turning 23 this year?

 

The fact that he is not playing is baffling.  Unless they are showcasing Benn then the logic behind this sort of decision making is worrisome and isn’t the way to go. 
 

Young players should be seeing more ice-time. Last game was a start but it needs to show more consistently. 

 

Not even a big Benning supporter and you don’t have to be to like some of these guys. 

Per naturalstattrick at 5v5, 

 

TOI With McDavid - 3:24

TOI Away From McDavid - 31:24

 

TOI With (Brady) Tkachuk - 3:51

TOI Away From Tkachuk - 10:21

 

TOI With Gaudreau - 11:33

TOI Away From Gaudreau - 63:15

 

TOI With Scheifele - 4:13

TOI Away From Scheifele - 19:40

 

TOI With Suzuki - 5:24

TOI Away From Suzuki - 17:31

 

This is clearly a coach who doesn't have confidence in Juolevi's abilities to actually play against top competition, which is what a top 4 defenceman should be able to do. Matthews/Marner are the only star players he's spent a decent ratio of his time up against (albeit based on a 1 game sample size), and that was a game where we were starting multiple rookies and were forced into putting more effort into sheltering Chatfield.

 

I don't know what your definition of "writing Lind and Gadjovich off" is, but it's at this point likely that they won't stick as NHLers, and is even less likely that they'll be able to carve out a top 9 role in the lineup. Lind in particular I think should be used as trade bait, and based on raw totals we might be able to get someone to bite (similar to how Benning got duped into trading a 2nd round pick for Vey).

 

I completely agree Juolevi should be playing over someone like Benn/Hamonic. This season is lost, and the best thing we can do at this point is start realizing what we have with our young players. Guys like MacEwen should be playing every game, and Demko should be starting a higher proportion of games than he has already.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Josepho

[Smashian Kassian]

46 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well.... like him or not Jim sure gets a reaction out of this market 

 

I might be off in the rhubarb on this but I don't mind his style. He does this stuff unfiltered and it isn't like the pablum the Leafs market gets when Dubas agrees to speak to that market. 

 

 

I appreciate his style. I really don't think it always helps hims with how crazy this market is. But the honesty is refreshing.

 

With Gillis everything was so vague & hidden, you'd have to read into everything. Him answering "possibly" to a specific issue was as significant as Benning laying out their intentions.

[Patel Bure]

Just now, gameburn said:

We didn't have to wait 2 years.  Better planning would have allowed us to build on last year's playoff run, not fall off a cliff.

I agree that Markstrom and Tanev were probably impossible or at least unwise to re-sign.  That's not my complaint.  My complaint is with not dealing with the Eriksson mess (Higgins was dealt with, and he was a stalwart guy) and with overpaying Beagle.  And with signing free agents in general.  Teams who are rebuilding generally don't do that, and they don't do it I think because they are building, giving opportunity, getting draft picks (something Benning didn't do well), making money available for the rare find that really could be picked up.  Not 3rd and 4th line fringe players who "will create a winning culture", or "provide support to our young players," (where support means killing penalties, taking defensive zone faceoffs and allowing the stars a rest.)  3rd and 4th line players can contribute to the driving of play, to actually scoring.  Not taking penalties lol, nor just being time fillers until the real hockey players get on the ice.  The truth is: there has been a huge upswing in the talent level of players available in the last 4 or 5 years and this team has not been able to take advantage of it because of old contracts and old thinking. 

1) Beagle and Roussel were brought in because guys like Gaudette and MacEwen weren’t quite ready at the time.  Even with that being said, their contracts will come off the books just when our real window is about to begin.   The same goes with a lot of our other bad contracts.  Those contracts were signed as a way of insulating the kids in our system and on our team.   It’s of no coincidence that...
 

A) All of those bad contracts will be off the books this year and next.

B-) Many of our drafted and/or acquired kids have not only made the team, but are also on the verge of making it.  
 

2) Higgins had no trade value at the time.  He was demoted because the Baertschi was ready enough to be given a legit opportunity.  
 

3) Eriksson was signed because our only top 6 RW at the time was Hansen.  Virtanen was too green while Burrows was washed up.  No PTO’s or cheap vets were available to sign with us at favorable term and money.   The Canucks wanted to protect Virtanen’s development and so they signed LE.  They figured that Eriksson and the twins could possibly help us make a push for the playoffs where our kids would get some valuable playoff experience.

 

3) I agree with what you said about 3rd/4th line players but your other description is also an extremely valid reason.  Those 3rd/4th line players for instance, in those roles that you cited above, really helped us in the bubble against St.Louis.   
 

4) Two years from now when all our bad contracts are off the books, good players will want to sign with our team due to the young and promising nucleus of talented that we will have assembled.  

[Patel Bure]

35 minutes ago, Josepho said:

You're referring to 14 games being a small sample size, but you simultaneously are saying he could've performed well based on a 3 game stretch, while ignoring the 38 game sample size that I provided.

 

I don't know if it takes someone 11 games to adjust to a new team. Miller and Schmidt did it pretty seamlessly. We technically don't know what those final 68 games could've looked like, but it's overwhelmingly a continuation of his time in Carolina and the end of his tenure here.

 

Personally, in this specific situation, I would not have been thrilled if Benning signed Markstrom and especially Tanev, that is correct. We can't really afford to have any more rough contracts. However, if we managed our cap space smartly over the years, I'd be more than willing to have him hand out a similar contract (likely less than what Calgary offered) to a top 5 goalie to help this team out in what should be contending years. Handing out contracts to good players is FAR more excusable.

 

Once again, don't really have a complaint with Tanev leaving, but Hamonic is nearing the bottom of the team in GF%, xGF%, SF%, etc. He hasn't been a good replacement at all and he's one of factors in why Hughes' defensive metrics are so godawful this season. Hamonic isn't a replacement for Tanev, he's a (much worse) replacement for Stecher. It's situations like these where I severely question Benning's ability to actually evaluate NHL level talent.

 

I never said I wanted Benning to re-sign Markstrom or Tanev. But, from all reports we know, Benning definitely DID want to bring back Markstrom. There are a few moves now (Nyquist, Toffoli, Markstrom) where Benning clearly hasn't been able to get a player he wanted due to his awful previous decisions blocking him -- that was my point, whether or not I agreed with signing those players is irrelevant. It's irrefutable that his cap allocation has prevented him from attempting to improve the team.

 

Toffoli didn't jump "so early" in UFA. He clearly wanted to stay here, and after the fact stated/implied how frustrated he was with how negotiations were handled and how he was going to come back. He waited multiple days.

 

 

 

 

Benning wanted to sign Markstrom for the term he offered Holtby.  Markstrom declined.  Given Demko’s performance in the bubble combined with Markstrom’s ailing body, the plan was to commit to Demko long term.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

11 hours ago, spur1 said:

What is this seven years crap... I have been in this for fifty years. However all the JB and Green haters think that they have a magic wand and a handful of fairy dust and they want management to go for it every year instead of building a team that wins several cups instead of one that loses in game 7 once and is done. Good cooking takes time. 

Team finished first overall in the league the following year.  Near the end of that season, Duncan Keith gave Daniel Sedin an elbow to the head knocking him out essentially for the rest of the season and pretty much the postseason (no way was he remotely close to 100%).  

[Smashian Kassian]

3 hours ago, Boudrias said:

I think a healthy exercise might be going back 6 years and looking at the roster of that day and then digging deeper into the prospect pool. It was a wasteland! Sure JB has made some questionable deals but that conclusion has hindsight benefit. He had limited option and had to build by the draft. Then he had to deal with the lottery bumping him down the pick ladder regularly. The COVID generated CAP freeze then screws his signing flexibility. He probably lost $4 mil in space. 
 

My biggest critic of JB is the lack of assets coming back on vets leaving the org. Part of that he had no control but I feel he has buckled to an extent by fans callling for faster win/loss gains than should be expected.

 

Overall I think JB has done a decent job. Willing to give him two more years.

 

The issue is the beginning of the tenure.

 

Realistically, if you go from 2017 TDL it's been a pretty good/typical rebuild. And they've done much better adding vets on the pro side too.

 

But the problem is they had already spent time & assets (Gudbranson, Eriksson, Baertschi, Sutter, Vey, Clendening, exc.) trying for quick fixes to compete, when they needed to rebuild.

 

And that has compounded frustration, & cost patience/reason in the market. Myers & Beagle - overpaid but both valuable contributors - would be more palatable if they hadn't already signed bad contracts like Eriksson, Baertschi, and (to a lesser degree) Sutter. 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Smashian Kassian

[spook007]

10 minutes ago, Josepho said:

 

Per naturalstattrick at 5v5, 

 

TOI With McDavid - 3:24

TOI Away From McDavid - 31:24

 

TOI With (Brady) Tkachuk - 3:51

TOI Away From Tkachuk - 10:21

 

TOI With Gaudreau - 11:33

TOI Away From Gaudreau - 63:15

 

TOI With Scheifele - 4:13

TOI Away From Scheifele - 19:40

 

TOI With Suzuki - 5:24

TOI Away From Suzuki - 17:31

 

This is clearly a coach who doesn't have confidence in Juolevi's abilities to actually play against top competition, which is what a top 4 defenceman should be able to do. Matthews/Marner are the only star players he's spent a decent ratio of his time up against (albeit based on a 1 game sample size), and that was a game where we were starting multiple rookies and were forced into putting more effort into sheltering Chatfield.

 

I don't know what you're definition of "writing Lind and Gadjovich off" is, but it's at this point likely that they won't stick as NHLers, and is even less likely that they'll be able to carve out a top 9 role in the lineup. Lind in particular I think should be used as trade bait, and based on raw totals we might be able to get someone to bite (similar to how Benning got duped into trading a 2nd round pick for Vey).

 

I completely agree Juolevi should be playing over someone like Benn/Hamonic. This season is lost, and the best thing we can do at this point is start realizing what we have with our young players. Guys like MacEwen should be playing every game, and Demko should be starting a higher proportion of games than he has already.

 

To say he hasn't got the coach trust is.....He is a rookie, who has played a total of 16 games.... 

He played a third of the minutes against Tkachuk and he played a third of the minutes against Suzuki...

Yes you can argue he is being sheltered against the best player in the world and a couple of pretty good  players in Scheifele and Gaudreau, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find a rookie with 16 games to his name playing more games against these players... 

 

 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

2 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Benning wanted to sign Markstrom for the term he offered Holtby.  Markstrom declined.  Given Demko’s performance in the bubble combined with Markstrom’s ailing body, the plan was to commit to Demko long term.

Lol.  Ailing body because Green rode him like a rented mule.  60 starts for each of the past several seasons tends to do that.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Some of these articles/comments in the wake are so bad.

 

Drance "forget...looking ahead to the future with a calculated plan, according to Benning."

 

What part of Benning saying; 'We (Aqua) had a plan in the offseason & we have a plan now' did he not understand?

 

I get people are out for blood, hell I've said it's time to move on myself, but atleast be honest with what was said.

 

Umm because saying you have a plan and actually having a plan are two different things... and having a plan and actually properly executing that plan is a whole different thing on top of that?

 

Benning has said they have a plan (well a long series of plans) all along, but nothing he said has actually materialized before.  Each “plan” seems to just be a reaction to the last failed plan. Why should anyone give him an indefinite benefit of the doubt?  Why is “this” plan going to be any different than any of the other plans?    What is his plan exactly?  He didn’t mention that his plan appears to be to let all the bad contracts he signed expire and hope for the best.

 

Did he come into the job 7 years ago saying he had a 9 year plan to contend and that by year 7 he planned on being worse then when he started... and he would spend to the cap and throw away a bunch of draft picks in the process?  I don’t remember that news conference at all.

 

Yes we are probably a couple years from being a regular playoff team (forget contending).  Did he mention that is because he absolutely crapped the bed on contracts and cap allocation?

 

Did he mention that we don’t actually have any significant cap flexibility coming up at all?  

This season sign Hughes, Petterson, and Demko to bridge deal extensions because we can’t afford long term deals.  We probably have to shed depth to do that because not enough money is coming off the books.

Then the offseason after that, we do have money coming off the books... but can’t really spend much of it because we will have major re-signings to do starting the year after that.  Boeser, Horvat, Miller, then Petey,Hughes, and Demko’s longer term deals, by then you are having to pay Hoglander and Podkolzin new raises if they turn out.

 

Once you map it out capwise, there is no magic cavalry coming and the whole house of cards relied on a constant stream of cheap ELC players just to tread water for the roster.  Benning hasn’t shown to be able to find much value in cheaper contracts on the market.  We need a bottom end roster full of Motte’s, not the rest of that crew.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Provost

[Patel Bure]

4 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Lol.  Ailing body because Green rode him like a rented mule.  60 starts for each of the past several seasons tends to do that.

Agreed.   Unfortunately, Demko wasn’t quite ready to take on more starts at the time.   Although I don’t like Holtby’s cap hit, his presence will allow for Demko to be well rested.  

[Josepho]

19 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Benning wanted to sign Markstrom for the term he offered Holtby.  Markstrom declined.  Given Demko’s performance in the bubble combined with Markstrom’s ailing body, the plan was to commit to Demko long term.

This interview with Shah indicates that he got an offer from the Canucks in the "Lehner range" -- Lehner got a 5x5 contract. So this is likely not true, this team by all accounts did try to get Markstrom locked up long-term -- they just got bit in the ass attempting to play hardball.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Josepho

[Josepho]

7 minutes ago, spook007 said:

To say he hasn't got the coach trust is.....He is a rookie, who has played a total of 16 games.... 

He played a third of the minutes against Tkachuk and he played a third of the minutes against Suzuki...

Yes you can argue he is being sheltered against the best player in the world and a couple of pretty good  players in Scheifele and Gaudreau, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find a rookie with 16 games to his name playing more games against these players... 

 

 

I know that rookies get sheltered, but the point I was referencing's Juolevi's deployment to was in response to the idea that he's for sure going to be a top 4 defenceman for us going forward, when we don't know how he's going to perform against top level competition.

[180sret]

Wow! Can't believe how toxic the Vancouver Media and some of the fanbase are. Haven't lived in BC for the last 35 years but can say the other NHL markets aren't near as toxic against their teams. There seems to be an unrealistic expectation that you should be good enough to challenge for the cup every year. A new coach will not get this team closer in the next 2 years, the young players are still learning what they can and can't do at this level. As far as JB is concerned, this is the best young talent on the team and in the pool that I've seen since the start of our last run.

 

Seems no one has the patients to see it thru. Building a team in real life ain't like a computer sim lol. Anyway, My thoughts.

Edited March 6, 2021 by 180sret

[gameburn]

8 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

1) Beagle and Roussel were brought in because guys like Gaudette and MacEwen weren’t quite ready at the time.  Even with that being said, their contracts will come off the books just when our real window is about to begin.   The same goes with a lot of our other bad contracts.  Those contracts were signed as a way of insulating the kids in our system and on our team.   It’s of no coincidence that...
 

A) All of those bad contracts will be off the books this year and next.

B-) Many of our drafted and/or acquired kids have not only made the team, but are also on the verge of making it.  
 

2) Higgins had no trade value at the time.  He was demoted because the Baertschi was ready enough to be given a legit opportunity.  
 

3) Eriksson was signed because our only top 6 RW at the time was Hansen.  Virtanen was too green while Burrows was washed up.  No PTO’s or cheap vets were available to sign with us at favorable term and money.   The Canucks wanted to protect Virtanen’s development and so they signed LE.  They figured that Eriksson and the twins could possibly help us make a push for the playoffs where our kids would get some valuable playoff experience.

 

3) I agree with what you said about 3rd/4th line players but your other description is also an extremely valid reason.  Those 3rd/4th line players for instance, in those roles that you cited above, really helped us in the bubble against St.Louis.   
 

4) Two years from now when all our bad contracts are off the books, good players will want to sign with our team due to the young and promising nucleus of talented that we will have assembled.  

If, the young core puts up with this.  There were hints at the start of this season that they didn't appreciate how this was unfolding.  I got the impression from Horvat -- who is pretty diplomatic -- that they were all a bit surprised at the scale of the turnover.   Which suggests that Benning may not have talked with the key 4 or 5, or asked their opinions.  Athletes are partners, not fodder.  

 

Psychologically, saying we'll be good in 2 years is not ideal to say the least.  Saying "next year" might be tolerable, but 2 years?  This is a LONG time in sports.  Or any workplace.  And Benning just said as much, it's not just us on the forums who can see a brighter future in 2 years.  He should be doing better, saying better than you and I can do looking at the contract mess.

 

Re: Eriksson, Beagle etc.: these guys were too old to be signed long-term, better GMs don't do this, at least for complementary pieces. Even Benning knows this now, as he didn't re-sign Tanev or Markstrom, or even try very hard to do so. 

 

If I thought that Benning had learned a great deal from these years and was making amends I might say he should be kept, but he still managed to screw up re-signing Stecher. And remember the Ekman-Larsson fantasy?  That pursuit took up a lot of time and energy... and he was I believe the 5th highest cap hit for D in the NHL at the time... how would we have paid for that? lol.  3 weeks spent on that I think, not on Stecher, not on Leivo, not on talking with the young core.  Pettersson spent the off-season here... I would have thought they'd have talked to him about the coming year/issues.  No indication they did.

[Patel Bure]

4 minutes ago, 180sret said:

Wow! Can't believe how toxic the Vancouver Media and some of the fanbase are. Haven't lived in BC for the last 35 years but can say the other NHL markets aren't near as toxic against their teams. There seems to be an unrealistic expectation that you should be good enough to challenge for the cup every year. A new coach will not get this team closer in the next 2 years, the young players are still learning what they can and can't do at this level. As far as JB is concerned, this is the best young talent on the team and in the pool that I've seen since the start of our last run.

 

Seems no one has the patients to see it thru. Building a team in real life ain't like a computer sim lol. Anyway, My thoughts.

Unfortunately, guys like JD Burke, 650 Sportsnet, and HF Canucks are cancers to the Canucks hockey community.   
 

Team 1040 was awesome and although they were critical of the Canucks at times, they have praise when it was called for and really knew how to see things objectively. 

[Ballisticsports.]

7 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

As great as it sounds to just shed all that weight, they do provide key services for this team.

 

Sutter - plays a good 15 minutes a night, 5-on-5 nothing exciting but he wins key faceoffs and is one of our best penalty killer. We'd need a 3rd line center to replace him and to play top PK minutes, not sure who's going to do that...

 

Beagle - as a 4C, he plays 12-15 minutes because again he's one of the best faceoff men in the league and plays hard PK minutes. Again, we don't have anyone in the organization to replace him.

Roussel - he can absolutely go, doesn't bring anything to this team, no grit really and while he's on the PK, just about anyone can do what he does, he's not fantastic defensively or skating-wise, I think Hoglander would do a brilliant job in his role but maybe even Jake or someone a bit more "expendable" who can skate well.

 

JV - tough one, I think JB is going to see what Virtanen brings over the next few games until the TD. If he scores more he'll stay, but if that 2 goal outing was a flash in the pan, I think he's gone to the Ducks and rightly so.

 

Pearson - tricky one again because he scores at a 15-goal, 40 point pace, plays 2nd unit PK minutes and occasionally PP minutes. Like Horvat he does it all, to a lesser extent. He fills a lot of this team's needs, fights hard along the boards and is a big veteran presence now for the younger guys (like a poor man's Miller). It's all well and good to say Podkolzin is going to come in next season and play 2nd line minutes, but can he defend as well, is he as strong along the boards and will he play 2nd unit PK minutes? I don't think so. Pearson brings a lot more to this team than just offence so will be another void to replace.

 

Eriksson - of course he brings nothing to the team but a big cap but I doubt JB will be able to move him yet again, he's tried for years.

 

Edler - I think the Canucks deserve it to Edler to do whatever he wants. If he wants to move to a contender, then trade him. If he wants to stay and retire a Canuck, re-sign him. Best defenceman this team has ever had, he's been through it all and is the Sedin-equivalent of a defenceman for this organization so they better do him right. Of course, we could get a juicy 1st round pick/decent prospect for him (maybe), and unlike the forwards, we have Juolevi waiting in the wings who could replace some of his minutes nicely, especially next season, but JB owes it to Edler to do whatever he wants.

 

So yes, it'd be lovely to free up some cap space and move Sutter, Pearson, Beagle, Roussel and maybe even Virtanen, but then that's our best faceoff men and penalty killers all gone in one fell swoop, and we have no good centers in our organization to replace the hard minutes Sutter and Beagle play. JB would have to look the UFAs to find someone and quite frankly there's not many great defensive centers out there.

 

If he's really smart, he'll trade Virtanen to someone (+/- a package) for a decent young 3rd line center. Tierny has come up time and time again as a perfect 3C for this team, and he might be impossible to pry, but someone like him would be a perfect replacement.

 

I'd be happy to keep one of Sutter or Pearson in that vein but really need to trade Roussel and Virtanen (if he continues to slump).

I use to think along these lines too, But, unless a player has been constantly giving a team a hometown discount to stay in Vancouver, then i think you have to treat them as a business deal in the same way that they were signing contracts.

 

[Patel Bure]

46 minutes ago, Josepho said:

 

Per naturalstattrick at 5v5, 

 

TOI With McDavid - 3:24

TOI Away From McDavid - 31:24

 

TOI With (Brady) Tkachuk - 3:51

TOI Away From Tkachuk - 10:21

 

TOI With Gaudreau - 11:33

TOI Away From Gaudreau - 63:15

 

TOI With Scheifele - 4:13

TOI Away From Scheifele - 19:40

 

TOI With Suzuki - 5:24

TOI Away From Suzuki - 17:31

 

This is clearly a coach who doesn't have confidence in Juolevi's abilities to actually play against top competition, which is what a top 4 defenceman should be able to do. Matthews/Marner are the only star players he's spent a decent ratio of his time up against (albeit based on a 1 game sample size), and that was a game where we were starting multiple rookies and were forced into putting more effort into sheltering Chatfield.

 

I don't know what your definition of "writing Lind and Gadjovich off" is, but it's at this point likely that they won't stick as NHLers, and is even less likely that they'll be able to carve out a top 9 role in the lineup. Lind in particular I think should be used as trade bait, and based on raw totals we might be able to get someone to bite (similar to how Benning got duped into trading a 2nd round pick for Vey).

 

I completely agree Juolevi should be playing over someone like Benn/Hamonic. This season is lost, and the best thing we can do at this point is start realizing what we have with our young players. Guys like MacEwen should be playing every game, and Demko should be starting a higher proportion of games than he has already.

 

Juolevi is still developing his game at the NHL level and as being deployed as such.  Why would he be given extended minutes against top competition?   Once OJ proves that he can handle 2nd and 3rd line opposition, he will be given more responsibilities.

[higgyfan]

57 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

I don't understand the outrage over the 2 year comment..

 

Was anyone expecting this team to compete for a cup this season???

 

When the Sedins retired - and the team was looking at Baertschi, Virtanen, Stecher & Hutton as building blocks of the future - were fans expecting us to be a cup contender in 3 years? 

 

In that quote he's saying compete for a cup, would people not agree striving to be an elite team in 2 years is not an acceptable aim?

 

It's Hughes second year & he's regressed defensively, its Demkos first as a starter. Should we be a playoff team right now if assets (cap included) were managed better? Yes. But even if they had Toffoli, Tanev & Markstrom instead of the deadweight we aren't competing for a cup this year.

Exactly.  I clearly remember most of the posters on this board last season were thinking the Nucks would be contenders in seasons 22-23 or 23-24.  Nothing has changed.  Just because they made some magic in the playoffs last year, doesn't mean they are suddenly a contender.

 

I still think that this team has a bright future and am excited to see the lineup next season and beyond.

 

What I really want to see, is for JB to trade Pearson for a 2nd and Sutter for a 4th at TDL (or earlier).  If Rousell can be traded (retain $) for a late pick, that would be great.  Somehow, the Loui contract needs to be dumped during the offseason; by paying his bonus and getting him to agree to retire, or trading him to a team with lots of spare cap.  Maybe some GM will take the Pears 2nd, Sutter 4th and a prospect (that has NHL possibility - Lockwood/Jasek??).

 

Regardless, the team needs to add toughness and have gaping hole at 3C and a RD.  This can be done via UFA (Laughton - 26yrs) and (a player like Montour-28yrs or Larsson - 27yrs).  These players add the toughness the team needs and are young enough to sign them to a longer term, so that the team can develop their own players that can eventually replace them.

[gameburn]

24 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Benning wanted to sign Markstrom for the term he offered Holtby.  Markstrom declined.  Given Demko’s performance in the bubble combined with Markstrom’s ailing body, the plan was to commit to Demko long term.

But signing Holtby "for the same term he offered Markstrom" just suggests how poor Benning is at assessing talent and the future of his team.  Holtby is paid way too much for a team that has no cap space and couldn't keep Toffoli or Stecher.  And he is here for 2 years!  Either Holtby is a back up or Demko was to be traded/lost to Seattle.  If Holtby is a backup (and Demko is protected in the expansion draft) then Holtby is here for too long and too much money.  On the other hand if Demko is actually the backup, then Holtby is not good enough, and Demko should have been moved/traded for assets asap.  It's this weird indecision on the goalkeeping that makes me think that the CDC faction that thinks Benning isn't that good at assessing talent may be right.  (I was always on the other side, as Benning came in with a stellar reputation for assessing talent.) 

[Patel Bure]

27 minutes ago, Josepho said:

This interview with Shah indicates that he got an offer from the Canucks in the "Lehner range" -- Lehner got a 5x5 contract. So this is likely not true, this team by all accounts did try to get Markstrom locked up long-term -- they just got bit in the ass attempting to play hardball.

Am I correct in assuming that Markstrom wasn’t offered Expansion Draft protection by the Canucks?