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

Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

Rate this topic


appleboy

Recommended Posts

The problem was trying to stay competitive and spend to the cap to try and stay competitive, instead of not spending to the cap suck for a few years, restock the prospects and aquire as many draft picks as possible via trade with any aging vets. Instead they've taken the long approach of this rebuild/retool and peoples patience are starting to run out, and I don't blame them one bit, this management screwed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

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).

That is ridiculous and completely disingenuous to say as well as being blatantly false.

 

When we chose to qualify Virtanen, we had to keep the cap space available for his arbitration award.  There was no option of walking away from Jake if Toffoli waited a few more days like you said.  
 

Teams aren’t allowed to walk away unless the arb award is greater than $4.5 million.

 

Virtanen was qualified before Toffoli signed elsewhere.  That was when the decision was made. 

 

We knew what cap space we had available and it could have been used on Toffoli had we not decided to qualify Virtanen.

 

There was absolutely a choice to be had between them.

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

23 minutes ago, appleboy said:

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.   

I would not have been surprised at all to see a 1st or 2nd and one of Podz or Hoglander going the other way with no retention on OEL. I dont see Eriksson ever being in that deal tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

The problem was trying to stay competitive and spend to the cap to try and stay competitive, instead of not spending to the cap suck for a few years, restock the prospects and aquire as many draft picks as possible via trade with any aging vets. Instead they've taken the long approach of this rebuild/retool and peoples patience are starting to run out, and I don't blame them one bit, this management screwed up.

I think most on here won't be surprised when I say that I agree with your statement.  LOL

 

However, living in the past is not going to win us a cup.  What I want now is for them to refocus and get this club back on track. Jim has managed to draft some very talented players and now the core of the team is very young. This season may be a gift from the hockey gods. One more season and the dead cap becomes available to who ever is making decisions to utilize.  ( We have had a few gifts from the gods as quite a few seasons have not gone the way this management had hoped for:)

We might get another high pick and I do trust Jim to find us another valuable piece. Jim has already prepared you for another mediocre season.

 

It would be nice to see some added org depth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

So he's both garbage and yet there's no way we would have gotten him without sending a bunch of top prospects and picks.

 

Convenient.

 

1 hour ago, steviewonder20 said:

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.

The plan would be that we'd be at the tail end of a rebuild. If you're taking anything from this gong show season as certain evidence of anything, you're a far bigger moron than you clearly think I am.

 

Steve Y and Sakic had far better starting points. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eriksson for OEL (one for one, with absolutely no other assets involved, regardless of how much Arizona retained) is still an absolutely miserable deal for us and should've never been considered.

 

Just a completely horrendous contract long-term, and the fact that Benning attempted to acquire it contradicts the idea that he wants our cap situation to be settled when Pettersson/Hughes get their bigger contracts.

Edited by Josepho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

So he's both garbage and yet there's no way we would have gotten him without sending a bunch of top prospects and picks.

 

Convenient.

He is not garbage but he is not very good either. Especially for his cap hit.

 

I am saying its unlikely BENNING could have gotten him without significantly overpaying. Most other GMs maybe but Benning was so fixated on oel being the solution its pretty much a guarantee he would have overpaid significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

He is not garbage but he is not very good either. Especially for his cap hit.

 

I am saying its unlikely BENNING could have gotten him without significantly overpaying. Most other GMs maybe but Benning was so fixated on oel being the solution its pretty much a guarantee he would have overpaid significantly.

Right, so because of your myopic bias there's no way Jim could have made a reasonable deal.

 

Your should listen to yourself lol.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aGENT said:

Right, so because of your myopic bias there's no way Jim could have made a reasonable deal.

 

Your should listen to yourself lol.

Its not bias, its just reality. Take a look at his trade history. Miller and Schmidt were cap relief trades for their previous teams. Gudbranson for Pearson was ok but his original trade for Gudbranson wipes out any possible positive to it. Sutter trade was garbage. Pretty much everything else is either bleeding picks and/or taking back tweeners or projects that 9 to 1 havent worked out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we're ignoring the fact that there is quite literally no reasonable deal involving OEL...

 

The fact that Bob Murray traded a 7th to us for Del Zotto and then unloaded him for a better pick within a month is basically direct proof that Benning isn't a very good negotiator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Right, so because of your myopic bias there's no way Jim could have made a reasonable deal.

 

Your should listen to yourself lol.

Meh i doubt it. The contract is bad just like erikksons, you can get players who have those kinda contracts for cheap just to clear the cap space. Like nashville did with weber. Id assume how much arizona was asked to retain was the biggest issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

The problem was trying to stay competitive and spend to the cap to try and stay competitive, instead of not spending to the cap suck for a few years, restock the prospects and aquire as many draft picks as possible via trade with any aging vets. Instead they've taken the long approach of this rebuild/retool and peoples patience are starting to run out, and I don't blame them one bit, this management screwed up.

ah cool, how does it feel to be so in tune with successful video game general managers.

 

your strategy would isolate most of the draft picks, and anger them into demanding a trade. this is how you get hall for larrson deals. since they want out they may hold out and sign offer sheets.

the team would certainly be added to the NTC of most players

free agents would less likely want to sign and those that did would demand more NTC NMC in thier contracts.

 

no one wants to play on the last place teams

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Josepho said:

Even if we're ignoring the fact that there is quite literally no reasonable deal involving OEL...

 

The fact that Bob Murray traded a 7th to us for Del Zotto and then unloaded him for a better pick within a month is basically direct proof that Benning isn't a very good negotiator.

nope thats not proof of $&!#. try again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Its not bias, its just reality. Take a look at his trade history. Miller and Schmidt were cap relief trades for their previous teams. Gudbranson for Pearson was ok but his original trade for Gudbranson wipes out any possible positive to it. Sutter trade was garbage. Pretty much everything else is either bleeding picks and/or taking back tweeners or projects that 9 to 1 havent worked out.

Take a look at your post history.

 

I guess I should carry on laughing at and/or ignoring your posts :lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Take a look at your post history.

 

I guess I should carry on laughing at and/or ignoring your posts :lol:

You probably should. Most of the time thats what i do with yours. 

 

I am assuming by your response you liked the Gudbranson and Sutter trades? And all the trades for tweeners that didnt pan out? I am curious to hear why you think they were not overpayments by Benning.

Edited by wallstreetamigo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Josepho said:

What do you think that means then?

well sir, if you don't have any reasonable clue what it could mean, why would  i waste my time hoping you have the intellectual capacity to understand supply/demand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Meh i doubt it. The contract is bad just like erikksons, you can get players who have those kinda contracts for cheap just to clear the cap space. Like nashville did with weber. Id assume how much arizona was asked to retain was the biggest issue. 

But apparently, according to these Jabronis, we were taking on his entire cap, not sending any back and also adding all of our prospects and picks. It's obvious. I mean it's Benning we're talking about here :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...