Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

[steviewonder20]

38 minutes ago, spur1 said:

Hearsay 

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/jim-benning-tried-to-put-out-the-tyler-toffoli-fire-but-just-made-everything-worse-3353610
 

[RWMc1]

19 minutes ago, steviewonder20 said:

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/jim-benning-tried-to-put-out-the-tyler-toffoli-fire-but-just-made-everything-worse-3353610
 

The whiners ignore this part   "We would have had to move money out.”    It was clear to the non-whiners that the cost of moving out salary was too high. When free agency opened, we had less than 7.3 million in cap room. Goal-tending and right D took preference, Realistic fans pointed out that we were unlikely to re-sign Toffoli last summer. Popularity contest fans insisted that he should be a priority. Those fans and the usual whiny media pretending to be fans are the ones still whining about a player that we wanted but couldn't keep. Yes, let's also ignore the Covid effect which made cap deals so hard to get done. We weren't the only team that had to make some tough decisions.

 

Like always, the snivellers change their story to suit the circumstances. Earlier in the season it was waaah Markstrom and waahhhhh Tanev. Once calgary started struggling the main player to whine about shifted to Toffoli. It'll be interesting how this looks in a couple of seasons.

[steviewonder20]

9 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

The whiners ignore this part   "We would have had to move money out.”    It was clear to the non-whiners that the cost of moving out salary was too high. When free agency opened, we had less than 7.3 million in cap room. Goal-tending and right D took preference, Realistic fans pointed out that we were unlikely to re-sign Toffoli last summer. Popularity contest fans insisted that he should be a priority. Those fans and the usual whiny media pretending to be fans are the ones still whining about a player that we wanted but couldn't keep. Yes, let's also ignore the Covid effect which made cap deals so hard to get done. We weren't the only team that had to make some tough decisions.

 

Like always, the snivellers change their story to suit the circumstances. Earlier in the season it was waaah Markstrom and waahhhhh Tanev. Once calgary started struggling the main player to whine about shifted to Toffoli. It'll be interesting how this looks in a couple of seasons.

Of course they had to move money out. The point of the thread is that the focus on OEL (who would have needed lots of money to be moved out) played a role in ignoring/running out of time with TT. Personally, I choose Demko over Markstrom and would have traded Tanev a year or two ago when his value was higher. TT I would have liked to have resigned.

[aGENT]

21 minutes ago, steviewonder20 said:

Of course they had to move money out. The point of the thread is that the focus on OEL (who would have needed lots of money to be moved out) played a role in ignoring/running out of time with TT. Personally, I choose Demko over Markstrom and would have traded Tanev a year or two ago when his value was higher. TT I would have liked to have resigned.

You have no idea what the potential OEL deal was, to judge it though.

 

Perhaps Eriksson was going the other way and they were retaining $2m on OEL?

 

And while we're at it, perhaps one of the reasons OEL is having such a bad season is because the team he just recently committed to, tried to dump him like hot garbage. And he can see they're heading for yet ANOTHER rebuild, with little hope of him competing for a cup in his career.

 

Also, the Canucks have an entire staff... A potential OEL trade in no way hampered them from signing Toffoli. All reports were that Benning was furiously working phones, looking to clear cap. Now, understandably, Toffoli seeing the dwindling money and roster spots around the league decided to sign for his childhood, home town team when a reasonable offer was presented rather than wait it out with us. But it's hardly some scathing indictment on the Canucks. Teams and players all over the league were scrambling. It's only a big deal here because of the microscope the Canucks are under.

[appleboy]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Also, the Canucks have an entire staff... A potential OEL trade in no way hampered them from signing Toffoli. All reports were that Benning was furiously working phones, looking to clear cap.

All of Jims problems for this year and next have been self inflicted. Bad contracts and poor cap management. They don't plan ahead and then run around in panic mode hopping that someone will bail them out of their own mess.    LOL

 

Righttt, they don't have any cap troubles....

 

They need to add a president. Someone who can set long term plans and manage a set cap structure.

[aGENT]

12 minutes ago, appleboy said:

All of Jims problems for this year and next have been self inflicted. Bad contracts and poor cap management. They don't plan ahead and then run around in panic mode hopping that someone will bail them out of their own mess.    LOL

 

Righttt, they don't have any cap troubles....

 

They need to add a president. Someone who can set long term plans and manage a set cap structure.

Just because you don't like or understand the plan, doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Fred65]

2 hours ago, 4petesake said:

It’s harder to find a GM who hasn’t had a pick like this than one who hasn’t.Check out this pick by “that idiot” Neil Smith, GM with one Stanley Cup, two Presidents Trophies, one conference title, three division titles, and seven playoff appearances. 
 

 

The 1999 draft apart from the Sedins was a brutal draft I see two players in the first round that I recognize, Barret Jackson and Nick Boyton So not really a fair comparison

 

1999 Draft Choices Round 1 - Vancouver Canucks - Team (nhl.com)

[steviewonder20]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Just because you don't like or understand the plan, doesn't mean there isn't one.

I agree with you completely. I don’t understand the plan. Did it include 7 years of spending to the cap to create a bottom feeding team with poor cap management, more NTCs and NMCs than any other team, a vastly over paid bottom six, little depth, only 2 D signed for next year, and an unimpressive prospect pool relative to other teams? If this is the plan, the plan sucks.

[spur1]

56 minutes ago, steviewonder20 said:

I agree with you completely. I don’t understand the plan. Did it include 7 years of spending to the cap to create a bottom feeding team with poor cap management, more NTCs and NMCs than any other team, a vastly over paid bottom six, little depth, only 2 D signed for next year, and an unimpressive prospect pool relative to other teams? If this is the plan, the plan sucks.

Open your eyes to the positive side...oh wait. 

[steviewonder20]

14 minutes ago, spur1 said:

Open your eyes to the positive side...oh wait. 

Tell me which of the above comments is not true.

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, steviewonder20 said:

I agree with you completely. I don’t understand the plan. Did it include 7 years of spending to the cap to create a bottom feeding team with poor cap management, more NTCs and NMCs than any other team, a vastly over paid bottom six, little depth, only 2 D signed for next year, and an unimpressive prospect pool relative to other teams? If this is the plan, the plan sucks.

 

Yes it did include spending to the cap during a rebuild in fact. Why do you care what ownership and management agreed to pay during the rebuild?  

 

Our 'cap management' is just fine. 

 

Vast majority of contact clauses are highly limited and expiring shortly.

 

Beagle and Sutter are overpaid by about $1m each, for key positions, and expire shortly. Beyond that minor inconvenience, our only real issue has been, and is, Eriksson. 

 

Our depth is fine and will continue to grow with that 'unimpressive prospect pool' continuing to graduate to one of the best 25 and under groups in the league. 

 

Two of D and a bunch of RFAS... Sure. Are people just looking for silly things to upset themselves over now?

[wallstreetamigo]

Any trade protection in a contract is, in fact, highly limiting. Its compounded when the cap hit is "a million too much" and the term "a year or two too long". With the cap situation in the nhl, trading is pretty tough. So even having a handful of teams you wont accept a trade to can effectively shut down any possibility at all of being moved. Players and agents seem to know this better than Benning which os why they keep asking for and receiving trade protection.

 

 

[Provost]

Anyone defending this management and pretending they really have a plan is simply being ridiculous at this point.

 

Please point out where Benning mentioned his 9 year plan to get back to the playoffs?  
 

A series of reactionary decisions that change year to year isn’t a plan.

 

If there was a plan, it was a terrible one and executed poorly.

 

I see folks defending him by saying it was too tough to move out money in one breath and then say we don’t really have bad contracts on the other.  
 

Guess what, it was and will always be easy to move out money.  Anyone saying otherwise is lying.  It is incredibly hard however to move out overpaid players who are bad values for their performance.... the fact that we “couldn’t move out money” is simply code for we have too many bad contracts that people don’t want.  Beagle, Sutter, Ferland, Roussel, Eriksson, Baertschi, Virtanen... nobody wants those guys at their contract price. It is pretty damning if you could waive 7 veterans and likely have no one pick up any of them.

 

We also didn’t have to clear money for Toffoli.  We just had to not qualify Virtanen and pick a slightly cheaper veteran back up goalie.  It was about Benning making a bad choice on who to keep.

 

We signed Pearson before the expansion draft for no discernible reason except that we were told he is a pro and provides intangibles in the room.

 

Was that the plan last offseason when not bothering to try to sign Tanev, Toffoli, or Stecher?  I mean if you hear teammates speak... you heard them referred those guys... not Pearson.

 

Nope... Benning realized he let the wrong guys go and screwed up the chemistry (and on ice) product, so he got gunshot and re-signed Pearson.

 

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

Anyone defending this management and pretending they really have a plan is simply being ridiculous at this point.

 

Please point out where Benning mentioned his 9 year plan to get back to the playoffs?  
 

A series of reactionary decisions that change year to year isn’t a plan.

 

If there was a plan, it was a terrible one and executed poorly.

 

I see folks defending him by saying it was too tough to move out money in one breath and then say we don’t really have bad contracts on the other.  
 

Guess what, it was and will always be easy to move out money.  Anyone saying otherwise is lying.  It is incredibly hard however to move out overpaid players who are bad values for their performance.... the fact that we “couldn’t move out money” is simply code for we have too many bad contracts that people don’t want.  Beagle, Sutter, Ferland, Roussel, Eriksson, Baertschi, Virtanen... nobody wants those guys at their contract price. It is pretty damning if you could waive 7 veterans and likely have no one pick up any of them.

 

We also didn’t have to clear money for Toffoli.  We just had to not qualify Virtanen and pick a slightly cheaper veteran back up goalie.  It was about Benning making a bad choice on who to keep.

 

We signed Pearson before the expansion draft for no discernible reason except that we were told he is a pro and provides intangibles in the room.

 

Was that the plan last offseason when not bothering to try to sign Tanev, Toffoli, or Stecher?  I mean if you hear teammates speak... you heard them referred those guys... not Pearson.

 

Nope... Benning realized he let the wrong guys go and screwed up the chemistry (and on ice) product, so he got gunshot and re-signed Pearson.

 

You had me at "anyone defending this management"

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, Provost said:

Anyone defending this management and pretending they really have a plan is simply being ridiculous at this point.

 

Please point out where Benning mentioned his 9 year plan to get back to the playoffs?  
 

A series of reactionary decisions that change year to year isn’t a plan.

 

If there was a plan, it was a terrible one and executed poorly.

 

I see folks defending him by saying it was too tough to move out money in one breath and then say we don’t really have bad contracts on the other.  
 

Guess what, it was and will always be easy to move out money.  Anyone saying otherwise is lying.  It is incredibly hard however to move out overpaid players who are bad values for their performance.... the fact that we “couldn’t move out money” is simply code for we have too many bad contracts that people don’t want.  Beagle, Sutter, Ferland, Roussel, Eriksson, Baertschi, Virtanen... nobody wants those guys at their contract price. It is pretty damning if you could waive 7 veterans and likely have no one pick up any of them.

 

We also didn’t have to clear money for Toffoli.  We just had to not qualify Virtanen and pick a slightly cheaper veteran back up goalie.  It was about Benning making a bad choice on who to keep.

 

We signed Pearson before the expansion draft for no discernible reason except that we were told he is a pro and provides intangibles in the room.

 

Was that the plan last offseason when not bothering to try to sign Tanev, Toffoli, or Stecher?  I mean if you hear teammates speak... you heard them referred those guys... not Pearson.

 

Nope... Benning realized he let the wrong guys go and screwed up the chemistry (and on ice) product, so he got gunshot and re-signed Pearson.

 

There is a plan, its just a plan to react year to year and minute to minute to change the focus.

 

They rely on goalies standing on their heads to be competitive at all. 

 

On balance, this is probably the worst constructed team outside of Buffalo considering all the cap he has had and solid prospects his drafting has produced.

 

Eriksson, Baertschi, Ferland, Sutter, Beagle, Roussel, Gagner-to-a-Spooner-Buyout, and a waiver wire bottom 6 that sure hustles but adds literally nothing positive to a game more than once in awhile.

 

I would not hire this management team to run a garage sale.

[aGENT]

We didn't 'choose' Virtanen over Toffoli folks. Toffoli signed in Montreal ten days before Virtanen's signed.

 

Pretty sure if Toffoli had been willing to wait a few more days, Virtanen would have been let walk (or had far less leverage).

Edited May 1, 2021 by aGENT

[EdgarM]

On 4/17/2021 at 2:06 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:

All good, but we differ on the bolded. 

Happy to have a path, even if it was forged by blind man, ...there is a path from then to now. 

 

I will state though, that even though I love EP and QH, I’m not sure I’d build around them... I know, this will pin the eyebrows of readers to their hairlines...

 

Playoff hockey and longevity in this sport are at odds with their body types and styles, IMO.  Hate to say it, but a balanced playoff team could be built out of returns for one or both.  This org isn’t really all that deep where it counts, but could be via trades like that, not that I’m foreseeing a GM ballsy enough to trade ONE, let alone two, franchise players... before they’re even out of their first contracts! 
 

IR mainstay EP and QH being brutalized in the playoffs is something I think is a high probability, once the team gets going.  
 

Remember you heard it here and the flack I’ll get for suggesting it’s likelihood. 

I am unfortunately with you on this one. For too many years I have watched the team flourish in the regular season and then we know what happens in the playoffs.

I really thought we had the character players on this team to succeed in the post season but I see nothing of the sort anymore. I find they are not even entertaining anymore. I guess I was spoiled watching Bure night in and night out for too many years as well as watching Linden excel in the playoffs. 

I don't think the GM or the coaches have helped much either so we are where we are, unfortunately.

[wallstreetamigo]

6 hours ago, aGENT said:

You have no idea what the potential OEL deal was, to judge it though.

 

Perhaps Eriksson was going the other way and they were retaining $2m on OEL?

 

And while we're at it, perhaps one of the reasons OEL is having such a bad season is because the team he just recently committed to, tried to dump him like hot garbage. And he can see they're heading for yet ANOTHER rebuild, with little hope of him competing for a cup in his career.

 

Also, the Canucks have an entire staff... A potential OEL trade in no way hampered them from signing Toffoli. All reports were that Benning was furiously working phones, looking to clear cap. Now, understandably, Toffoli seeing the dwindling money and roster spots around the league decided to sign for his childhood, home town team when a reasonable offer was presented rather than wait it out with us. But it's hardly some scathing indictment on the Canucks. Teams and players all over the league were scrambling. It's only a big deal here because of the microscope the Canucks are under.

Good luck them taking Eriksson and retaining on OEL. Come on. Unless they were getting a 1st and a high end prospect or two that would not have ever been in the realm of possibility.

 

OEL wasnt particularly good last year either, before Benning decided he was the answer to focus all his energy on.

[steviewonder20]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

Yes it did include spending to the cap during a rebuild in fact. Why do you care what ownership and management agreed to pay during the rebuild?  

 

Our 'cap management' is just fine. 

 

Vast majority of contact clauses are highly limited and expiring shortly.

 

Beagle and Sutter are overpaid by about $1m each, for key positions, and expire shortly. Beyond that minor inconvenience, our only real issue has been, and is, Eriksson. 

 

Our depth is fine and will continue to grow with that 'unimpressive prospect pool' continuing to graduate to one of the best 25 and under groups in the league. 

 

Two of D and a bunch of RFAS... Sure. Are people just looking for silly things to upset themselves over now?

So you're saying that the plan was after 7 years and spending to the cap that we are a lottery team? Please tell me how many prospects we have in the top 100 (clue: only Podz). If you see the Canucks as a team with depth, then there’s not much more to say. Yes the NMCs and NTCs are expiring between this year and next, but we have more atm than any other team and look where we are in the standings. Its one thing to give one to a Hughes or Petterson, but not to our bottom six players. So, what is the plan and how many more years until it’s complete? We would be further ahead after 7 years with a GM like Steve Y. or Joe Sakic.

[appleboy]

7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Good luck them taking Eriksson and retaining on OEL. Come on. Unless they were getting a 1st and a high end prospect or two that would not have ever been in the realm of possibility.

 

OEL wasnt particularly good last year either, before Benning decided he was the answer to focus all his energy on.

Be careful what we ask for or suggest. LOL  They may have been offering a first and someone like Pod.  I get the feeling that the owners shut things down for this year. Pulled the plug on any more deals.   Covid related. 

 

We will never know but covid may have saved the teams bacon.