Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

[4petesake]

11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I wouldnt have said that. I would have said to give Demko some time to figure things out and sign a cheap veteran backup to help. Key word is cheap.

 

Signing a veteran backup and signing a big money starter are two different things.

 

Goaltending has not been a significant Canuck problem since Luongo went to Vancouver. The team playing like crap in front of them and not having adequate secondary scoring sure have though.

Here is the list of UFA goalies signed for at least $500,000 or so less than Holtby. I can’t say which ones were still available at that time as it doesn’t list signing dates but let’s assume you could have your pick. Which one do you like?

 

I agree with you on the rest though.

[wallstreetamigo]

28 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

Here is the list of UFA goalies signed for at least $500,000 or so less than Holtby. I can’t say which ones were still available at that time as it doesn’t list signing dates but let’s assume you could have your pick. Which one do you like?

 

I agree with you on the rest though.

As a back up to Demko? Any number of them would be serviceable in a situation where the team trusts their starting goalie. 

 

Having 2 starting goalies is a nice luxury. Just not when it amounts to the cap cost of your backup forcing you to lose players in other areas where the need is more dire.

[Timråfan]

6 hours ago, 4petesake said:

Here is the list of UFA goalies signed for at least $500,000 or so less than Holtby. I can’t say which ones were still available at that time as it doesn’t list signing dates but let’s assume you could have your pick. Which one do you like?

 

I agree with you on the rest though.

Lundqvist of course, so he can train Petey. 
1,5 mill for him compared to over 4 mill for Holtby... This could also mean that Lundqvist get a Cup if he can hold on a few years

[Gurn]

2 hours ago, Timråfan said:

Lundqvist of course, so he can train Petey. 

you wanted to sign a goalie that doesn't play anymore?

[Mackcanuck]

[Timråfan]

27 minutes ago, gurn said:

you wanted to sign a goalie that doesn't play anymore?

What's the difference? 

 

No cap issue anyway. 

[4petesake]

8 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

As a back up to Demko? Any number of them would be serviceable in a situation where the team trusts their starting goalie. 

 

Having 2 starting goalies is a nice luxury. Just not when it amounts to the cap cost of your backup forcing you to lose players in other areas where the need is more dire.

Well you did say sign a cheap veteran backup in response to “in case Demko struggles as young goalies often do when becoming the starter.” I’m just curious which one you would have signed that fits this bill so we can critique your performance.

 

You can critique mine if you like.  FWIW   I might have tried for Ryan Miller if he was available at the time. Turns out he is playing far, far worse than Holtby albeit much cheaper.  Either one would ave been the type you’d want around helping Demko make the transition to becoming the starter. 
 

What should be obvious from that list is that the pickings were awfully slim on veteran goalies so it’s pretty disingenuous to just throw out “any number would be serviceable.”  If you would have been fine with two young goalies with very little experience that’s a different matter. 

[wallstreetamigo]

28 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

Well you did say sign a cheap veteran backup in response to “in case Demko struggles as young goalies often do when becoming the starter.” I’m just curious which one you would have signed that fits this bill so we can critique your performance.

 

You can critique mine if you like.  FWIW   I might have tried for Ryan Miller if he was available at the time. Turns out he is playing far, far worse than Holtby albeit much cheaper.  Either one would ave been the type you’d want around helping Demko make the transition to becoming the starter. 
 

What should be obvious from that list is that the pickings were awfully slim on veteran goalies so it’s pretty disingenuous to just throw out “any number would be serviceable.”  If you would have been fine with two young goalies with very little experience that’s a different matter. 

Let me clarify. To me, a backup goalie (or in this case a 2nd starting goalie) was not a day 1 free agency priority over a top line winger like Toffoli, a top defensive dman like Tanev, or even a 3rd pairing guy (Stecher).

 

I feel that especially in covid world, a decent veteran backup goalie on a reasonable contract would have been possibly the easiest and cheapest to acquire in a trade.

 

I know its not a popular opinion but I also would have been perfectly fine with Demko starting and Dipietro backing up to start the season if it meant other areas would have been strengthened rather than weakened.

 

The problem I have with Benning and Green is that both place far too much emphasis on needing veterans to "mentor" or "safety net" young guys rather than doing what the best teams have done and use down years and periods like the Canucks have had for several years to truly allow young players the chance to battle through struggles and get their footing. I understand the conventional thinking but I think its somewhat outdated in the new NHL.

 

Trusting young players to rise to the occasion without years of coaching sheltering or having to sit behind an inferior veteran just because they are a veteran is the new normal. Look at the guys on waivers around the league. Cost certainty, elc cost to value/production, and throwing kids in the deep end are clearly the way many teams are heading. Bloated veteran contracts are being waived and sent to the minors far more now.

Edited March 28, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[JM_]

13 hours ago, 4petesake said:

Picture this: Markstrom goes to Calgary, JB doesn’t sign Holtby, and Demko struggles early as young goalies often do when becoming the starter.

 

“Pfffft, JB what freakin idjut GM doesn’t sign a veteran goalie.”

 I can  hear it now.

its funny, the hard core Benning haters don't seem to get that its not binary. Just because you don't need to see Jim fired it doesn't mean you love every move he's made. There is a middle ground where you're happy with the overall progress and not thrilled with some other moves. 

 

But your example is correct, it doesn't matter which way Jim goes there's a spew of hate over the move.  

[Gurn]

 A lot of people will make up their minds and from then on refuse to let new info change that opinion.

 

Extreme example:

Canucks win the cup this year.  2 or 3 posters will p and moan that they didn't win last year.

[appleboy]

The fact that Demko has turned into a number one goal tender makes Holtby's 4.5  mil for next year a waist. Unfortunately hind sight is always 20/20. The good thing is that the cap issues are not fully solved until 2022/2023 season. That is the season that management should be preparing to load up. Get the kids signed next season and forward. Bring as many of the young low cost players into the fold next year. Players like Pod , OJ and Hog should be fixtures by the end of next season. Lind, Gad , Woo and Rathbone should get long looks. We may also get a fairly high draft pick this year. Maybe a player who is ready for the 2022 season.

2022/2023 use the extra cap space to carefully fill a few holes from the UFA market.  

[wallstreetamigo]

28 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its funny, the hard core Benning haters don't seem to get that its not binary. Just because you don't need to see Jim fired it doesn't mean you love every move he's made. There is a middle ground where you're happy with the overall progress and not thrilled with some other moves. 

 

But your example is correct, it doesn't matter which way Jim goes there's a spew of hate over the move.  

How about being happy with some moves but not thrilled with the overall progress?

 

I dont hate Benning. I just think its time for a GM that is better at the core functions of the job. 

[ShawnAntoski]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Let me clarify. To me, a backup goalie (or in this case a 2nd starting goalie) was not a day 1 free agency priority over a top line winger like Toffoli, a top defensive dman like Tanev, or even a 3rd pairing guy (Stecher).

 

I feel that especially in covid world, a decent veteran backup goalie on a reasonable contract would have been possibly the easiest and cheapest to acquire in a trade.

 

I know its not a popular opinion but I also would have been perfectly fine with Demko starting and Dipietro backing up to start the season if it meant other areas would have been strengthened rather than weakened.

 

The problem I have with Benning and Green is that both place far too much emphasis on needing veterans to "mentor" or "safety net" young guys rather than doing what the best teams have done and use down years and periods like the Canucks have had for several years to truly allow young players the chance to battle through struggles and get their footing. I understand the conventional thinking but I think its somewhat outdated in the new NHL.

 

Trusting young players to rise to the occasion without years of coaching sheltering or having to sit behind an inferior veteran just because they are a veteran is the new normal. Look at the guys on waivers around the league. Cost certainty, elc cost to value/production, and throwing kids in the deep end are clearly the way many teams are heading. Bloated veteran contracts are being waived and sent to the minors far more now.

I agree that JB (and perhaps Green to a certain extent) has paid too much in terms of years to have these types of players in the line up to shelter the youth.  Imo, in todays game having these types of players are no longer neccessary cause the game is already being managed & analyzed so much that it makes these types of move a waste of a cap space - perhaps very similar to having a one dimensional on ice enforcer.   I hope moving forward, that JB would stop signing 30+ vets to term for these reasons (or any reasons) and instead hire them as coaches if mentoring is needed or sign them to only 1/2 yr(s) (atmost) type contract(s) cause with hindsight, this theory no longer applies in todays game and in his case, they had mostly not worked out (whether Greens' deployment and structure had any affect on it, would be hard to predict unless the team decides to try this (same) roster with a different coach/staff while there are still games left in this shorten season (?).   Our games against the Habs & Jets should had stopped the pretend playoffs push but I undertstand that the team will not come out waving the white flag in public or admit that they are selling cause it sends the "wrong message" but the fans already know and at the very least, there actions moving forward in this shorten season should indicate a more forward thinking).

Edited March 28, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[aGENT]

50 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

I agree that JB (and perhaps Green to a certain extent) has paid too in terms of years to have these types of players in the line up to shelter the youth.  Imo, in todays game having these types of players are no longer neccessary cause game is being so much off the ice that these young players coming are (mostly) already prepared to be pro's at a very young age.  I hope moving forward, that JB would stop signing 30+ vets to term and instead hire them as coaches or only to 1/2 yr(s) (atmost) type contract(s) cause with hindsight, this theory no longer applies in todays game and in his they mostly not worked out....

Sorry, going to have to completely disagree with you two on this point. Without the likes of Sutter, Beagle, Edler, Tanev etc to play the hard minutes/situations and shelter Petey in his rookie year, how do you two propose we allow him the near 80% O zone starts he recieved that allowed him to be so successful and get acclimated to the NHL on his way to a Calder?

 

Sorry, but this is just a bad take and continues the myopic trend in this market to completely undervalue what solid defensive (usually veteran) players bring to a team.

Edited March 28, 2021 by aGENT

[ShawnAntoski]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Let me clarify. To me, a backup goalie (or in this case a 2nd starting goalie) was not a day 1 free agency priority over a top line winger like Toffoli, a top defensive dman like Tanev, or even a 3rd pairing guy (Stecher).

 

I feel that especially in covid world, a decent veteran backup goalie on a reasonable contract would have been possibly the easiest and cheapest to acquire in a trade.

 

I know its not a popular opinion but I also would have been perfectly fine with Demko starting and Dipietro backing up to start the season if it meant other areas would have been strengthened rather than weakened.

 

The problem I have with Benning and Green is that both place far too much emphasis on needing veterans to "mentor" or "safety net" young guys rather than doing what the best teams have done and use down years and periods like the Canucks have had for several years to truly allow young players the chance to battle through struggles and get their footing. I understand the conventional thinking but I think its somewhat outdated in the new NHL.

 

Trusting young players to rise to the occasion without years of coaching sheltering or having to sit behind an inferior veteran just because they are a veteran is the new normal. Look at the guys on waivers around the league. Cost certainty, elc cost to value/production, and throwing kids in the deep end are clearly the way many teams are heading. Bloated veteran contracts are being waived and sent to the minors far more now.

Good point and I agree but the game day roster & deployment are up to the coaches and for long while now the staff has been chosing to dress a more veteran group, especially, in the d core with some tweaking in the forward group.   Imo, most of our FA's (even Edler) should walk and those minutes be given to the younger player(s).

[ShawnAntoski]

39 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Sorry, going to have to completely disagree with you two on this point. Without the likes of Sutter, Beagle, Edler, Tanev etc to play the hard minutes/situations and shelter Petey in his rookie year, how do you two propose we allow him the near 80% O zone starts he recieved that allowed him to be so successful and get acclimated to the NHL on his way to a Calder?

 

Sorry, but this is just a bad take and continues the myopic trend in this market to completely undervalue what solid defensive (usually veteran) players bring to a team.

It is ok to disagree, my points are that there is more structures in todays games and (without digging into the numbers) some of those vets had also been injury prone during there tenure with the Canucks.   Also, lately the staff had been fielding a more veteran laden line up and the team has still stuggled & depended on Demko to win most of our games; perhaps the struggle is mostly due to the staffs deployment & structure (?).  If we were competing this year, perhaps playing a more veteran line up and sheltering the youths D zone delpoyment would make sense.

 

Preferably, I hope JB signs these types to 1yr cheap contracts or hire a better staff to act as mentors to our young players instead; plus most of these young players coming in, are already prepared to be a Pro from such an early age that the transition period to the NHL should not be too long.  Ofcourse, with hindsight most theory only works well on paper and moving forward, I hope to see the Canucks, be more pro active in recognizing down years like these (eary on) as an opportunity to develope & showcase the youths in the NHL level in preparation for the next years.  Tbh, just by hanging around various blog sites it seems that most fans had already recognized that this year is a regression (early on) and in my case, seeing the youth(s) has been my main reason for watching but lately, this has not been the case cause the staff is still dressing a more veteran laden line up (especially, in the d) to win but I undertand.

 

Perhaps, a more balance approach of old school with new school instead of going heavy with this type of approach should had been taken cause EP, QH and even Demko showed they did not need alot of sheltering at all, instead just ice time to prove they are mostly ready.  I understand your point of view (good points) and only with hindsight, that I can disagree - GCG..

Edited March 28, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[aGENT]

19 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

It is ok to disagree, my points are that there is more structures in todays games and (without digging into the numbers) some of those vets had also been injury prone during there tenure with the Canucks.   Also, lately the staff had been fielding a more veteran laden line up and the team has still stuggled & depended on Demko to win most of our games; perhaps the struggle is mostly due to the staffs deployment & structure (?).  If we were competing this year, perhaps playing a more veteran line up and sheltering the youths D zone delpoyment would make sense.

 

Preferably, I hope JB signs these types to 1yr cheap contracts or hire a better staff to act as mentors to our young players instead; plus most of these young players coming in, are already prepared to be a Pro from such an early age that the transition period to the NHL should not be too long.  Ofcourse, with hindsight most theory only works well on paper and moving forward, I hope to see the Canucks, be more pro active in recognizing down years like these (eary on) as an opportunity to develope & showcase the youths in the NHL level in preparation for the next years.  Tbh, just by hanging around various blog sites it seems that most fans had already recognized that this year is a regression (early on) and in my case, seeing the youth(s) has been my main reason for watching but lately, this has not been the case cause the staff is still dressing a more veteran laden line up (especially, in the d) to win but I undertand.

 

Perhaps, a more balance approach of old school with new school instead of going heavy with this type of approach should had been taken cause EP, QH and even Demko showed they did not need alot of sheltering at all, instead just ice time to prove they are mostly ready.  I understand your point of view (good points) and only with hindsight, that I can disagree - GCG..

You need vets to shelter and mentor your early young guys. As those guys mature, gain experience (and wisdom etc from those vets) and enter their primes, they become the 'vets' that then mentor the young guys coming up behind them (supplemented by the odd other older vet here and there).

 

It's the natural progression of the plan and really shouldn't be the mystery to some that it is.

[ShawnAntoski]

58 minutes ago, aGENT said:

You need vets to shelter and mentor your early young guys. As those guys mature, gain experience (and wisdom etc from those vets) and enter their primes, they become the 'vets' that then mentor the young guys coming up behind them (supplemented by the odd other older vet here and there).

 

It's the natural progression of the plan and really shouldn't be the mystery to some that it is.

Perhaps in the past (more so than now) cause the game has evolved that it it not needed as much on the ice - imo - and as I stated, if mentoring is required hire a better staff instead.  Also, (imo) experienced is gain by mostly doing and if these vets are eating up ice time then the youths are just mostly sitting and will still be commiting gaffes when played due to a lack of on ice experience.   

 

If I was GM and mentoring or sheltering is the reason, I would only be signing these type of players to very short term contracts (mostly 1yr or at most 2yrs) or long term if they decide to be a part of the staff - especially, in the cap era were cap space is always needed.   I understand your points but I disagree given the teams current status and these group of vets has mostly been underperforming on the ice (perhaps to be expected as a player ages) - hindsight.  If the team is competing then I would agree alot more but this year would had been a perfect time to showcase the youths and limit the ice time of these mentoring vets but the decision makers are wanting to put on the facade of a winning culture.  With the fake playoff push now obviously over, I hope to see more of the youths to be showcased but our lame duck coach won't do it (and I understand why).  This shorten season seems to had revealed alot of issues the team will need to address moving forward from the ownership down, this is why I hope Aquamans first move should be to hire a team president that can work with JB; and JBs' fist move, would hopefully, be to try this roster/core with a new staff...

Edited March 28, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Perhaps in the past (more so than now) cause the game has evolved that it it not needed as much on the ice - imo - and as I stated, if mentoring is required hire a better staff instead.  Also, (imo) experienced is gain by mostly doing and if these vets are eating up ice time then the youths are just mostly sitting and will still be commiting gaffes when played due to a lack of on ice experience.   

 

If I was GM and mentoring or sheltering is the reason, I would only be signing these type of players to very short term contracts or long term if they decide to be a part of the staff - especially, in the cap era were cap space is always needed.   I understand your points but I disagree given the teams current status and these group of vets has mostly been underperforming on the ice (perhaps to be expected as a player ages) - hindsight.  If the team is competing then I would agree alot more but this year would had been a perfect time to showcase the youths and limit the ice time of these mentoring vets but the decision makers are wanting to put on the facade of a winning culture.  With the fake playoff push now obviously over, I hope to see more of the youths to be showcased but our lame duck coach won't do it (and I understand why).  This shorten season seems to had revealed alot of issues the team will need to address moving forward from the ownership down, this is why I hope Aquamans first move should be to hire a team president that can work with JB; and JBs' fist move to try this roster/core with a new staff...

Where the evidence for this? If anything, teams like BUF or EDM point to the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

 

How are players like Beagle or Sutter underperforming?

Edited March 28, 2021 by aGENT

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Sorry, going to have to completely disagree with you two on this point. Without the likes of Sutter, Beagle, Edler, Tanev etc to play the hard minutes/situations and shelter Petey in his rookie year, how do you two propose we allow him the near 80% O zone starts he recieved that allowed him to be so successful and get acclimated to the NHL on his way to a Calder?

 

Sorry, but this is just a bad take and continues the myopic trend in this market to completely undervalue what solid defensive (usually veteran) players bring to a team.

I am not saying veteran players to take the hard defensive minutes is a bad thing. Quite the contrary actually. My issue is when a GM pays premium dollars AND term for those players and when the coaches continue to play them over giving young guys a chance when they are not providing the actual improved defensive play they were signed for.

 

We dont need veterans for leadership anymore imo. Horvat, Miller, even Petey are leading by example now. So if we canget our veteran defensive help on thecheap (like Hamonic) we would be much better off overall.

 

Literally every season we see defensively solid veteran players signed on inexpensive 1 year deals to do that job.

 

As players, I think guys like Sutter, Beagle, Roussel, Myers, Holtby, etc. - even Eriksson - are fine. Just not relative to the cap space and term they take up that is keeping the team from improving itself.