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

1 hour ago, 4petesake said:


Since we’ve all been speculating on cap space lately I took a few minutes this morning to put the figures in one place to make it easier to compare teams. I hope that the figures are accurate but if there are mistakes it’s due to early morning brain fog.

 

I’m not sure what to make of this yet but if it helps to prove anyone’s point, have at it.

 

 

4E3279C8-9C93-481C-9D2D-E63751B146CD.jpeg

It is good to look at it that way, I don't know the particulars of all the teams and what major pieces they need to lock up in that timeframe and that is probably themost important consideration.

If you take out about $21 million conservatively for Petterson, Hughes, and Boeser from that $46 million available... you get $25 million with 11 players signed (including Ferland), so about $2 million per player average for the rest of the roster.

Accounted for in those committed salaries we would have:
Miller-Petterson-Boeser
Pearson-Horvat-Hoglander
Ferland-XX-XX
XX-XX-XX
XX

Hughes-XX
Schmidt-Myers
XX-XX

Demko
XX

$25 million isn't a lot to fill out that roster, and you can't spend a lot of that anyways as you need to re-sign Hoglander, Horvat, and Miller the next year... and then likely Petterson and Hughes coming off their bridge contracts the year after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Toffoli isnt the only loss though. Tanev is definitely a loss as well.

 

But the real loss to the team is the opportunity cost of all the cap space Benning has wasted. It could have been used to take a few cap dumps with picks/prospects added as an example. We woukd have ended up in the same place at leasf for a few years but with a stronger prospect pool or picks and cap space to add difference makers.

The cap we spent on Schmidt, Hamonic and Holtby is pretty much identical to what Tanev, Markstrom and Stecher are making. Ergo, cap space (at least not this year) wasn't the reason for those changes (and IMO, long term improvements).

 

Was there a leadership and 'familiarity' loss at the beginning of the year (especially with Tanev). Absolutely. But it had nothing to do with cap. And those changes are net positives, long term, by not signing Tanev and Markstrom to a bunch of high dollar, older, injury prone player contracts, that you claim to hate so much (except in this case where it suits your narrative).

Edited by aGENT
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

The cap we spent on Schmidt, Hamonic and Holtby is pretty much identical to what Tanev, Markstrom and Stecher are making. Ergo, cap space (at least not this year) wasn't the reason for those changes (and IMO, long term improvements).

 

Was their a leadership and 'familiarity' loss at the beginning of the year (especially with Tanev). Absolutely. But it has nothing to do with cap. And those changes are net positives, long term by not signing Tanev and Markstrom to a bunch of high dollar, older, injury prone player contracts that you claim to hate so much (except in this case where it suits your narrative).

Its not just about last off season though. The cumulative wasted cap space has everything to do with having to move out good players to add other good players.

 

To improve as a team, you move out the bad players and replace them with good ones.

 

Thats opportunity cost and it is a huge reason this team cant actially improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Its not just about last off season though. The cumulative wasted cap space has everything to do with having to move out good players to add other good players.

 

To improve as a team, you move out the bad players and replace them with good ones.

 

Thats opportunity cost and it is a huge reason this team cant actially improve.

The vast majority of our 'improving' always has, and will continue to come from, our developing youth. Not signing old, injury prone, overpriced UFA's (I think it's hilarious you're actually arguing for this :lol:). 

 

The reason Markstrom isn't here is because of the ED. Period. Not cap or anything else you'd like to imagine.

 

Tanev's not here because we didn't want to risk committing as many dollars and years as Calgary offered him to an aging, overpriced, injury prone player. The exact type you're constantly railing against on here. If Tanev would have taken a $4m x 2 year deal, he'd likely still be here.

 

Edited by aGENT
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

The vast majority of our 'improving' always has, and will continue to come from, our developing youth. Not signing old, injury prone, overpriced UFA's (I think it's hilarious you're actually arguing for this :lol:). 

 

The reason Markstrom isn't here is because of the ED. Period. Not cap or anything else you'd like to imagine.

 

Tanev's not here because we didn't want to risk committing as many dollars and years as Calgary offered him to an aging, overpriced, injury prone player. The exact type you're constantly railing against on here. If Tanev would have taken a $4m x 2 year deal, he'd likely still be here.

 

When did I say signing old, injury prone overpriced free agents is the key? Its not.

 

But if you are going to sign ufa players, signing top 6 and top 4 d is a better idea than bottom 6 plugs.

 

Did Benning offer Tanev a contract? Sounds like he didn't even really try to keep him until after he was going to sign with Calgary.

 

Signing a bunch of average free agents to Jul 1 frenzy contracts isnt the answer. Using cap space to take on those type of players from cap strapped teams while getting those teams to add assets to take them on would have given the team a much better prospect pool and additional assets to draft or acquire IMPACT players that could organically improve the team as you suggest.

 

And the net result - a bunch of overpriced vets on the roster during the lean years to supposedly hold the young players hands - would have ended up in the same place as it is at now. Just with a lot more assets to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signing a legitimately good shutdown 3C would be absolutely huge for this team and I don't really know how you can argue otherwise.

 

Expecting the youth to continue to develop is a very risky strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Josepho said:

Signing a legitimately good shutdown 3C would be absolutely huge for this team and I don't really know how you can argue otherwise.

 

Expecting the youth to continue to develop is a very risky strategy.

I think we should explore playing Miller at 3C in the short term. I think 3 scoring lines + 1 shutdown > 2 scoring, 1 checking, 1 shutdown

 

Especially with the departures of McCann, Gaudette, Madden. Our 3C prospect pool is kicked down the line with hoping Lind makes the cut. 

 

Can also give us more flexibility for our up and coming wingers (presuming we don't lose anyone to Seattle)

 

Hoglander - Petey - Boeser

Pearson - Horvat - Podholzin

Roussel - Miller - Motte

Highmore - Beagle - MacEwen

                  Lind (ideally 3 line RW)

 

And yes, very risky to assume Lind and Podholzin can make the jump to top 9 forward, but I'm hopeful (otherwise I'm breaking out my tanking slogans for the next 2 seasons 'Never go full Bedard').

 

 

 

 

Edited by DSVII
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

When did I say signing old, injury prone overpriced free agents is the key? Its not.

It's literally exactly what you've been whining about us not doing this past summer (yet whining about the exact opposite of us doing it in the past).

 

Do try to make up your mind about when we should or shouldn't sign older veterans.. It's muddling what exactly your narrative du jour is.

 

46 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

But if you are going to sign ufa players, signing top 6 and top 4 d is a better idea than bottom 6 plugs.

You sign UFA's to fill holes you can't otherwise via draft or trade. I'd also argue that 'plugs', who require far less term and cap, are far lower risk UFA's than top 6 F's or top 4 D.

 

After all, Myers is a top 4 D and your lot whinge endlessly about him.

 

How about Eriksson who was a top 6F. How'd that work out? I'd happily sign two more Beagles in exchange for having Eriksson off the books.

 

46 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Did Benning offer Tanev a contract? Sounds like he didn't even really try to keep him until after he was going to sign with Calgary.

I saw it reported that we offered him a 2 year deal IIRC. We were never matching Calgary's offer. Nor should we have.

 

46 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Signing a bunch of average free agents to Jul 1 frenzy contracts isnt the answer.

Don't recall us doing that this past summer...

 

46 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Using cap space to take on those type of players from cap strapped teams while getting those teams to add assets to take them on would have given the team a much better prospect pool and additional assets to draft or acquire IMPACT players that could organically improve the team as you suggest.

Not the route we took. Still have a solid young core and deep pool of potential support players regardless. Get over the #asset management spilled milk.

 

46 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

And the net result - a bunch of overpriced vets on the roster during the lean years to supposedly hold the young players hands - would have ended up in the same place as it is at now. Just with a lot more assets to develop.

No guarantee that's true. We're not lacking assets to develop. 

 

22 minutes ago, Josepho said:

Signing a legitimately good shutdown 3C would be absolutely huge for this team and I don't really know how you can argue otherwise.

 

Expecting the youth to continue to develop is a very risky strategy.

There are no legitimately good shutdown 3C UFA's left IIRC. It's either re-sign Sutter or make a trade (I suggest targeting Jenner).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It's literally exactly what you've been whining about us not doing this past summer (yet whining about the exact opposite of us doing it in the past).

 

Do try to make up your mind about when we should or shouldn't sign older veterans.. It's muddling what exactly your narrative du jour is.

 

You sign UFA's to fill holes you can't otherwise via draft or trade. I'd also argue that 'plugs', who require far less term and cap, are far lower risk UFA's than top 6 F's or top 4 D.

 

After all, Myers is a top 4 D and your lot whinge endlessly about him.

 

How about Eriksson who was a top 6F. How'd that work out? I'd happily sign two more Beagles in exchange for having Eriksson off the books.

 

I saw it reported that we offered him a 2 year deal IIRC. We were never matching Calgary's offer. Nor should we have.

 

Don't recall us doing that this past summer...

 

Not the route we took. Still have a solid young core and deep pool of potential support players regardless. Get over the #asset management spilled milk.

 

No guarantee that's true. We're not lacking assets to develop. 

 

There are no legitimately good shutdown 3C UFA's left IIRC. It's either re-sign Sutter or make a trade (I suggest targeting Jenner).

Keeping Toffoli was an absolute no brainer after the assets spent to acquire him. If he was asking for the moon then no but he wasnt. My mind is made up about what players to sign. The age of the player to sign is less important than the quality of the player to me. 

 

Plugs that get paid 3 mil a year for 4 years arent exactly far lower than actual good players though.

 

Myers is not worth 6 mil per year but is a good dman. I dont typically complain much about him. I just dont think losing him in expansion as an example would be a bad thing.

 

Eriksson was a bad fit before he signed. He was used in a very specific role in Boston the year before and played with good players who played not at all like the Sedins. That role was not a fit with what the Canucks expected him to be here. It was doomed from the start actually. Benning had a clearly distorted view of Eriksson. I mean he strongly supported trading Seguin for him. Should have taken the L on that one and not made it worse by signing him in Van.

 

If Rathbone, Lind, and Podkolzin make the team, a bit of an if still really, there is really not much of consequence left in the prospect pool. Some good young guys but no one who can be seen as a sure thing even as a support player or as trade currency for impact players.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Keeping Toffoli was an absolute no brainer after the assets spent to acquire him. If he was asking for the moon then no but he wasnt. My mind is made up about what players to sign. The age of the player to sign is less important than the quality of the player to me. 

Not sure how this refutes any of what your supposedly responding to but... Agree (though I don't think the 'assets spent' were really that onerous). And again, that was in fact the plan before the pandemic happened.

 

Quote

Plugs that get paid 3 mil a year for 4 years arent exactly far lower than actual good players though. 

Neither Beagle or Roussel were 'plugs'. Like at all. That take is laughable. Guys like Vesey or Boyd are 'plugs' we picked up for free off waivers. They're not in the same stratosphere.

 

Quote

Myers is not worth 6 mil per year but is a good dman. I dont typically complain much about him. I just dont think losing him in expansion as an example would be a bad thing.

Yeah, he is. It would be if you can't replace him. 

 

Quote

Eriksson was a bad fit before he signed. He was used in a very specific role in Boston the year before and played with good players who played not at all like the Sedins. That role was not a fit with what the Canucks expected him to be here. It was doomed from the start actually. Benning had a clearly distorted view of Eriksson. I mean he strongly supported trading Seguin for him. Should have taken the L on that one and not made it worse by signing him in Van.

Agreed. I was one of the few people practically screaming ahead of the signing that it would be a mistake. Still, he was a 'top 6 forward' as you posted. As were Lucic, Okposo etc. So was Skinner when BUF signed him to a $9m deal etc, etc... Clearly much 'safer' than signing bottom 6 players...

 

Quote

If Rathbone, Lind, and Podkolzin make the team, a bit of an if still really, there is really not much of consequence left in the prospect pool. Some good young guys but no one who can be seen as a sure thing even as a support player or as trade currency for impact players.

Again this is silly. This is the natural consequence of having a top of the league prospect pool graduate to the NHL. We have one of the best 25 and under groups in the league. We'll likely add one or two blue chip guys this draft and still have the likes of Woo, Lockwood, Gadjovich, Jasek etc who all look like they have a solid short at being solid complimentary/support players (or more).

 

And behind them we're still SWIMMING in guys trending well that are exactly the types of players you get with the 3rd round and later picks you guys constantly lament over our lack of (#asset management). We're not remotely short of them despite it.

 

We don't really 'need' more impact guys. We wouldn't be able to pay/keep them all if we get them. What we need is solid support/complimentary guys to fill in around the core guys we already have. The guys we trade out to replenish, will eventually be the likes of Miller, Myers, Schmidt, Pearson etc as they age out and/or get passed. And yes, if some of our support/complimentary kids, or other future prospects end up becoming  'impact' guys... You have them, or other guys they replace, you can move out.

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always amazed at how fans can some how reach a positive with their team when the club is third worst team in the entire  NHL O/A. Sure EP is out, the rest of the injuries are or should be of little consequence and yet here we are. We've ( many ) have bragged about our prospect pool and yet here we are none apparently of much consequence when it matters. The club has been frankly on a nose dive. In the 2014-15 season they were 8th O/A so we've gone from 8th to 29th. They've been a work in progress for 7 years and counting and have recently declared that it will be a further 2 years before we see them turning the corner. The plan, assuming there was/is one has failed or is non existent. Just look at the sad game tonight ( my prediction ) and then ask where in the H&ll is this team heading to, and yet, many will defend to their dying day we're looking good or glory is just around the corner totally disregarding what we've achieved historically in the last 7 years as some sort of guidance. In business terms or political terms after this period of time there would be consequence, but if this board is any thing to judge by fans simply lap it up  :lol::lol:

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

It's really frustrating watching the Canucks right now because they're gassed and still getting over a 3 week lay off and Covid and there's little time for recovery between games due to the hyper compressed schedule.  And the line up is full of kids and band aids.  This season is a write off.

 

Which players from this "audition" are looking like they will stick? 

 

Virtanten No - Agreed.

Motte Yes - Agreed. 

Vessy No - Agreed.

Lind Maybe - I see Lind as being a cheap option in our bottom 6 next season. He's shown alright.

MacEwen Maybe - Agreed

Hawryluk Maybe - Haven't really been that impressed with his skills, but he DOES try.

Highmore No - I would be willing to keep him as a call-up.

Mickaelis No - Agreed.

Boyd Maybe - I guess. Haven't been that impressed.

Graovac No - I actually like Graovac, but purely for the AHL.

Rathbone Maybe - I imagine he will be in the lineup.

Juolevi Yes - Agreed.

Chatfield No - Agreed. He's more composed than I expected, but doesn't really bring much.

 

They really need a decent 3C.  That'll make a real difference in the bottom 6 because some production is going to be required.  Is it Sutter re-signed at $2.5?  Podkolzin may have a 3rd line spot to start the season 

 

Miller Petey Boeser

Pearson Horvat Hoglander

XXXXXX Sutter? Podkolzin

XXXXXX XXXXX Motte

 

I added my own opinions to your own in the quote. I think we're basically on the same page.

 

As for the 3rd line, if we could somehow land a 1st line LW (which may be a challenge) I actually see Miller taking that third line spot, then also being added to PP, etc. He likes playing center, but he would be wasted if we can't give him decent wingers to play with. Another alternative you mentioned is Sutter - who I would also be ok with keeping around on a smaller contract. I was thinking more like 2m, but who knows.

There's still the question if Beagle will be fit to play next season, is there not? If not, then I propose:

 

XXXXX Petey Boeser

Pearson Horvat Hoglander

Podz Miller Lind?
Motte Sutter BigMac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I'm always amazed at how fans can some how reach a positive with their team when the club is third worst team in the entire  NHL O/A. Sure EP is out, the rest of the injuries are or should be of little consequence and yet here we are. We've ( many ) have bragged about our prospect pool and yet here we are none apparently of much consequence when it matters. The club has been frankly on a nose dive. In the 2014-15 season they were 8th O/A so we've gone from 8th to 29th. They've been a work in progress for 7 years and counting and have recently declared that it will be a further 2 years before we see them turning the corner. The plan, assuming there was/is one has failed or is non existent. Just look at the sad game tonight ( my prediction ) and then ask where in the H&ll is this team heading to, and yet, many will defend to their dying day we're looking good or glory is just around the corner totally disregarding what we've achieved historically in the last 7 years as some sort of guidance. In business terms or political terms after this period of time there would be consequence, but if this board is any thing to judge by fans simply lap it up  :lol::lol:

Nobody is under the impression this season is going well. Bad season =\= bad team. It happens. The team is still trending in the right direction.

 

Nobody, besides perhaps Apollo, expected us to win the cup in the depths of a rebuild. Most of us expected us to be a poor to bubble team these past years. I truly don't understand how some of you think that's an 'argument' of anything :lol:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/6/2021 at 7:03 AM, Provost said:

No one said it was.  When at least half your roster is filled with guys that no other team would take on waivers... that IS a big problem however.  That is where this team is at.

Even when we manage to get rid of some bad contracts, we have no realistic path to replace that dead weight with anything but more dead weight.  We won't actually have much cap space, we will be signing Petterson and Hughes to bridge deals so they will come up for renewal in 2-3 years.  In 2022 and 2023 we have Boeser due a big raise, we have to re-sign Horvat and Miller, we have to re-sign Hoglander who will be coming off his ELC.  We are then right back into extending Petterson and Hughes off their bridge deals.

The little money we do have somehow has to find us a couple more top 6 forwards, a couple of top 4 D... and a bunch of bottom of the roster guys that can actually contribute instead of being dead weight.  There really isn't much help coming from the farm.  Podkolzin and Rathbone will graduate to the big club... and then it is pretty much a wasteland of prospects.   Literally no one else who you can say has a really good chance of becoming a meaningful NHLer... lots of "maybe's" and guys who might be replacement level or worse players.

The amount of dead weight certainly isn't ideal, and more than most other decent teams. But I maintain that regardless of the reason such contracts exists, they will be over soon and that our core is sound.

As for replacement talent - I agree somewhat. We don't have the high end prospect pool we did a couple of years ago, and Benning will need to find a way to replenish it. In this regard though, I'm not too concerned due to his history of making good draft selections. I will say, however, that although there aren't any top-end names that stand out, there ARE plenty of B-level prospects, and you gotta think (hope?) at least one or two of them will hit.

 

Finally, I don't think we require to bring in as much as you do. Even with my lineup posted in the post above to Crabcakes, I really only see the need for 1 top 6 winger to be brought in. It wouldn't hurt to have another legit top 4 defenseman as well, but there too I don't think we are (on paper. There's that term again) as bad as you think:
QH: Nothing needs to be said - though I wish he would find his defensive game again
Schmidt: While he hasn't been that great with us, there are many variables that might contribute to that. He's looked better, so hopefully he will look good next season. I don't think that most will deny he's a top 4 guy. 

Juolevi: Who knows what his ceiling is. He's impressing me more lately, but he's a wildcard imo. Could be a top 4. Could remain bottom pairing.

Hamonic: (If re-signed). I think he's done ok. Not a top 4 guy anymore (if he ever was) but a solid bottom pairing guy.

Edler: Isn't having a great year. Age is catching up to him. But I wouldn't be against a re-sign for 1 year at a reduced salary. Still a middle pairing guy.

Rathbone: Who knows yet. I like *some* of what I see. Could well end up top 4.

Myers: Paid like a top 4 and considered by some to be one, I'd say he's fringe top 4 but really a complementary player who serves a role.

 

So that's 3 top 4 guys, 2 who could well be top 4 soon, one who is very servicable if we re-sign Hamonic, and 1 fringe top 4 guy. (By my estimations).

That doesn't seem so bad? It's not the immediate gratification we would all like, but it could be a very solid group in a couple years and again, on paper, looks not really that bad as it stands.

 

If anything, I would be searching for an ideal defensively-minded partner for Hughes.

Edited by kloubek
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nobody is under the impression this season is going well. Bad season =\= bad team. It happens. The team is still trending in the right direction.

 

Nobody, besides perhaps Apollo, expected us to win the cup in the depths of a rebuild. Most of us expected us to be a poor to bubble team these past years. I truly don't understand how some of you think that's an 'argument' of anything :lol:

But for glories sake we've been regurgitating this same thing for 7 years, I was a young man when this started :) and this year we're currently standing at  29 O/A .... 29 O/A  when does 29th have a ugly feel to it .... apparently never. We're trending in the rights direction that's a statement that is 7 years old the fact is we're actually getting worse. In 2014-15 we were 8th O/A now we're 29th !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, kloubek said:

XXXXX Petey Boeser

Pearson Horvat Hoglander

Podz Miller Lind?
Motte Sutter BigMac

I'd be ok with running a sheltered 'kid' 4th (3rd?) line with Lind at C if we're spitballing about next year. Something like:

 

Miller, Pettersson, Boeser

Pearson, Horvat, Podkolzin/Hoglander

XXXXX, Lind, Podkolzin/Hoglander

Motte, Sutter, MacEwan

 

I think the three 'vet' lines could shelter that kid line initially. But really, Lind and Podkolzin both have fairly developed two way games already and may not need it long. Hoglander is a bit of a work in progress positionally in that regard but his motor covers a lot of his shortcomings there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

But for glories sake we've been regurgitating this same thing for 7 years, I was a young man when this started :) and this year we're currently standing at  29 O/A .... 29 O/A  when does 29th have a ugly feel to it .... apparently never. We're trending in the rights direction that's a statement that is 7 years old the fact is we're actually getting worse. In 2014-15 we were 8th O/A now we're 29th !

Look at the bigger picture of where we're headed as an organization with a solid young core, expiring vet contracts and a deep pool of support pieces coming rather than hyper focusing on short term results in a season that went sideways.

 

IMO we're a lot closer to the team that clawed it's way back in to the playoff picture (without it's young star centre) than the mess before that or the team that's clearly hit the wall after getting Covid and compounded by playing another compressed schedule after it. I don't expect us to win more than a couple of our remaining games (if that). That doesn't make the team's long term prospects bad though. It just means that this mess of a season will continue to suck.

Edited by aGENT
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...