what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?

[aGENT]

58 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

We can agree to disagree. You will never convince me that the only bad move Benning has ever made in 7 years is Eriksson.

I never said it was his only mistake. I said it's really the only bad move of meaningful cap consequence. Big difference. Erase it and none of the rest are unmanageable or anything beyond the normal, reasonable hit/miss expectations of any team/GM.

 

No team has 100% cap efficiency when you're dealing with injuries, players who's performance slips due to age, chemistry etc.

 

You're making the pursuit of perfection, the enemy of good.

 

Quote

When you are a cap max team finishing at the bottom of the standings for a half a decade its pretty clear you have wasted a significant amount of cap space somewhere.

That's a managerial and owner decision that in no way effects you as a fan. Again, feel free to disagree with the method, it doesn't make you right or them wrong.

 

Quote

I mean, if actually playing the right way and winning games is the goal and the reason you need so many mediocre vets around of course. That is further proven when as a result of those "no big deal" mid to long term contracts you lose a top line winger, a top 2 defensive dman, and better depth players.

We didn't lose a top 2 dman. We lost a #3 in Tanev and gained a #2 in Schmidt and a #3-4 in Hamonic. I do that again all day, every day.

 

For a guy harping about cap on vets, I think it's hilarious you wanted to sign an aging, injury prone D to a 4 year deal at over $4m 

 

Again, erase Eriksson (the only actual cap consequence) and Toffoli is still here. And even with Eriksson, no Covid and he's still here too.

 

Those contracts aren't the problem.

 

Quote

Its a bit disingenuous to on one hand say all of these players/contracts are good and on the other say he cant trade them because no other gm wants them. Makes you wonder why they dont.

Feel free to quote where I said no one wants them. Sutter and Pearson are injured in their expiring season at the TDL. We're not trading Beagle. Roussel hasn't been the same since the knee injury. That's a straw man.

Edited March 29, 2021 by aGENT

[MeanSeanBean]

On 3/27/2021 at 8:04 PM, RWMc1 said:

Unrestricted free agent Chris Tanev has signed a four year deal with the Calgary Flames, according to multiple reports, the first of which came from TSN1040’s Rick Dhaliwal.

    Tanev looking at 4 years and 4.5 M in Calgary.

    — Rick Dhaliwal (@DhaliwalSports) October 10, 2020

The full breakdown of the deal isn’t known at this point, but Tanev will be joining forces with Jacob Markstrom in Calgary, as the goaltender signed a 6 year deal worth $36 million earlier today.

The Canucks’ reportedly offered Tanev a two-year deal in the $4 million range.

When Canucks general manager Jim Benning spoke to media this afternoon, he said that Tanev planned to sleep on it and make the Canucks aware of his decision by Saturday morning. It now appears as though Tanev had an afternoon nap before coming to a decision this evening.

This was a hilarious read. I read the original post and thought "well that's just not right at all, better check to see if anyone has addressed this before I do". You post direct evidence to @Squamfan after they tried to 'nope your wrong you'. Thank you for doing that. I read to many blatant lies on this forum in an attempt to bend the story to what ever fits a poster best. Often this interactions lead to needless name calling but in this case you handled it perfectly.

Edited March 29, 2021 by shayster007

[MeanSeanBean]

1 minute ago, shayster007 said:

This was a hilarious read. I read the original post and thought "well that's just not right at all, better check to see if anyone has addressed this before I do". You post direct evidence to @Squamfan after they tried to 'nope your wrong you'. Thank you for doing that. I read to many blatant lies on this forum in an attempt to bend the story to what ever fits a poster best. Often this interactions lead to needless name calling but in this case you handled it perfectly.

 

[KoreanHockeyFan]

Lol why are people complaining. Did you people really expect this rebuild to go up in a straight, upward trajectory? You're going to have bad seasons here and there on the way up. Colorado just went through that exact same process not too long ago.

 

The losses of Markstrom, Toffoli, Stecher, etc were all obviously done to prep cap space for Petey, Hughes and Demko - not sure why this is so hard for people to understand. Benning has already admitted his Eriksson contract didn't turn out well and probably plans to ride out some of the other crappy bottom 6 contracts he's signed. Once those all expire, hopefully he'll have learned his lesson and will fill that cap space with more cheaper deals. 

 

Relax. 

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

I never said it was his only mistake. I said it's really the only bad move of meaningful cap consequence. Big difference. Erase it and none of the rest are unmanageable or anything beyond the normal, reasonable hit/miss expectations of any team/GM.

 

No team has 100% cap efficiency when you're dealing with injuries, players who's performance slips due to age, chemistry etc.

 

You're making the pursuit of perfection, the enemy of good.

 

That's a managerial and owner decision that in no way effects you as a fan. Again, feel free to disagree with the method, it doesn't make you right or them wrong.

 

We didn't lose a top 2 dman. We lost a #3 in Tanev and gained a #2 in Schmidt and a #3-4 in Hamonic. I do that again all day, every day.

 

For a guy harping about cap on vets, I think it's hilarious you wanted to sign an aging, injury prone D to a 4 year deal at over $4m 

 

Again, erase Eriksson (the only actual cap consequence) and Toffoli is still here. And even with Eriksson, no Covid and he's still here too.

 

Those contracts aren't the problem.

 

Feel free to quote where I said no one wants them. Sutter and Pearson are injured in their expiring season at the TDL. We're not trading Beagle. Roussel hasn't been the same since the knee injury. That's a straw man.

Its not the only negative factor though. Effects are cumulative in a cap world. Being unable to get rid of the horrific eriksson contract only makes the term of some of those other deals look even worse and have an even bigger negative cap impact.

 

I was long a proponent of trading Tanev. But based on his fit with Hughes, signing him to a shorter term deal would have been fine. The reporting suggests that Benning waited until the offer from Calgary was made. I dont kbow if thats true but it seems possible to me that Tanev might have considered a shorter term deal to stay. Again, no way of knowing but it sounds like Benning was too busy chasing OEL. Toffoli at his contract is not even debatable as to whether it would have been good. If you think Beagle, Roussel, Myers, and Sutter are good at their cap hit and term, its pretty hard to suggest keeping Toffoli at his would be a bad risk to take.

 

I would have preferred a situation where we added Schmidt and possibly Hamonic and kept Tanev and Toffoli. Thats the kind of veteran players I dont mind adding/keeping. Its not only Eriksson's contract that kept that from being a possibility though. Getting rid of two or even all of Sutter, Beagle, Roussel, Baertschi plus not signing Holtby would have gone a long way to making that possible.

 

Anyone who would want Beagle, Roussel, and Sutter at their cap hits over Toffoli at his is crazy imo. Veterans are fine to me, just make them talented ones that arent easily replaceable by 1 to 1.5 mil per year players. 

 

Its not about perfection to me. Good would have been enough. Terrible, which imo is what Benning did, is not acceptable to me. So the difference for me is between good and terrible, not perfect and good.

 

Other than drafting, Benning has done very little else I would describe as good or even average.

Edited March 29, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[Ajax-]

3 hours ago, ABNuck said:

Sarcasm...but if I had to choose between Loui or TT...I'll take Toffoli.

Real worth? If LE made 1.75m, Sutter made 2.25m, Beagle and Roussel made 1.75m each, then that would have freed up about 9mil, so we'd still have TT and Stetch...but 20/20 hindsight doesn't help much. If we'd have offered LE, Beags and Rous those figures, they never would have signed. And if we only offered Sutter a 2.25m extension, he wouldn't have re-upped. So it sucks now but in reality we wouldn't have them without the overpriced contracts...gotta love free-agency eh? I think that the NHL needs a retention clause when it comes to UFA's, not just RFA's...another thread...another day...

Coulda, shouda, woulda. done deals, spilt milk man, let it go, move on

 

They were offered the contracts at the time and signed them during free agency and had to pay more, so what.

 

Go

[Ajax-]

3 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont blame him for wanting to sign a veteran goalie. Why did he need to sign a 2nd starting goalie though? Wasted cap imo. He could have signed a 1 to 1.5 mil veteran backup (or claimed one off waivers/traded for one for next to nothing) and kept Toffoli.

 

The problem I have is that goaltending was prioritized in free agency when it literally has not been a problem since the Luongo days. Secondary and at times even primary scoring has certainly been and defensive play under Green has been borderline brutal. I guess no wonder we need to stockpile starting goalies, they need to steal every 2nd win we get because the team defense is brutal. Of course the only thing Holtby has stolen us is cap space for Toffoli lol.

 

[wallstreetamigo]

5 minutes ago, AbrasiveAjax said:

Coulda, shouda, woulda. done deals, spilt milk man, let it go, move on

 

They were offered the contracts at the time and signed them during free agency and had to pay more, so what.

 

Go

Its not really coulda, woulda, shoulda when in almost all cases it was easily seen as terrible the minute it was done.

 

But thank you for adding that opinion to the discussion. 

[ABNuck]

9 minutes ago, AbrasiveAjax said:

Coulda, shouda, woulda. done deals, spilt milk man, let it go, move on

 

They were offered the contracts at the time and signed them during free agency and had to pay more, so what.

 

Go

So you're saying that there's no point to a thread that discusses what might have been? I think if we were running the team and our top managers were constantly living in the past and bringing up past shoulda, coulda, woulda's to make points, then I would get irritated by it as well. But since we're all just fans of the team and have no executive stake, I think it's OK for each person to express their opinions...but only if it's OK with you of course.

[DSVII]

8 minutes ago, AbrasiveAjax said:

 

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Its not the only negative factor though. Effects are cumulative in a cap world.

Literally every team has 'cumulative', inefficient cap though. It's part of the expected win/loss of running an NHL team. They're not remotely fire-able contracts, even together. 

 

You guys act like we have five or six Eriksson deals on the books. It's ridiculous. And if we did, I'd be right there with you with my torch and pitch fork. We simply don't.

 

Quote

I was long a proponent of trading Tanev. But based on his fit with Hughes, signing him to a shorter term deal would have been fine. The reporting suggests that Benning waited until the offer from Calgary was made. I dont kbow if thats true but it seems possible to me that Tanev might have considered a shorter term deal to stay.

I've said in here numerous times that short term, Tanev should have been a priority over any of the guys that walked. I'd still easily take Schmidt + Hamonic over Tanev though. Hamonic getting getting up to speed was an exceedingly short term problem. Re-signing Tanev would be a long term problem. I know which I prefer.

 

Quote

Again, no way of knowing but it sounds like Benning was too busy chasing OEL.

I have zero problem with chasing OEL given the reported cap and or retention going back. A GM's job is to pursue things to improve their team. That's what he was doing.

 

Quote

Toffoli at his contract is not even debatable as to whether it would have been good. If you think Beagle, Roussel, Myers, and Sutter are good at their cap hit and term, its pretty hard to suggest keeping Toffoli at his would be a bad risk to take.

You're going straw man again. I've never said anywhere they're (all) 'good at their cap'. Nor did I say anywhere that Toffoli was a 'bad risk to take'. Stop attempting to put words in my mouth, thank you.

 

I outright said Beagle and Sutter are good players but are +/- $1m overpaid. Roussel WAS worth his contract until his injury. Injuries are not a GM's fault. Myers is paid at the high end of fair market value. He's maybe $500k 'overpaid' and even that is a stretch.

 

Toffoli, was a nice luxury, at the position we're arguably, organizationally deepest, that we could no longer afford because Covid happened and/or Eriksson is on the books. He was a good player and a good fit, that I would have liked to retain if the stars aligned. They didn't.

 

Quote

I would have preferred a situation where we added Schmidt and possibly Hamonic and kept Tanev and Toffoli. Thats the kind of veteran players I dont mind adding/keeping. Its not only Eriksson's contract that kept that from being a possibility though. Getting rid of two or even all of Sutter, Beagle, Roussel, Baertschi plus not signing Holtby would have gone a long way to making that possible.

Hey, I'd like to trade Virtanen for MacKinnon. This is fun! Who's playing 3 and 4 C, killing penalties etc in this scenario lol

 

Quote

Anyone who would want Beagle, Roussel, and Sutter at their cap hits over Toffoli at his is crazy imo.

Straw.

 

Man.

 

Quote

Veterans are fine to me, just make them talented ones that arent easily replaceable by 1 to 1.5 mil per year players. 

They aren't.

 

Quote

Its not about perfection to me. Good would have been enough. Terrible, which imo is what Benning did, is not acceptable to me. So the difference for me is between good and terrible, not perfect and good.

Again, your entitled to your opinion. As ill informed as it is.

 

Quote

Other than drafting, Benning has done very little else I would describe as good or even average.

Disagree.

Edited March 29, 2021 by aGENT

[KoreanHockeyFan]

3 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Its not the only negative factor though. Effects are cumulative in a cap world. Being unable to get rid of the horrific eriksson contract only makes the term of some of those other deals look even worse and have an even bigger negative cap impact.

 

I was long a proponent of trading Tanev. But based on his fit with Hughes, signing him to a shorter term deal would have been fine. The reporting suggests that Benning waited until the offer from Calgary was made. I dont kbow if thats true but it seems possible to me that Tanev might have considered a shorter term deal to stay. Again, no way of knowing but it sounds like Benning was too busy chasing OEL. Toffoli at his contract is not even debatable as to whether it would have been good. If you think Beagle, Roussel, Myers, and Sutter are good at their cap hit and term, its pretty hard to suggest keeping Toffoli at his would be a bad risk to take.

 

I would have preferred a situation where we added Schmidt and possibly Hamonic and kept Tanev and Toffoli. Thats the kind of veteran players I dont mind adding/keeping. Its not only Eriksson's contract that kept that from being a possibility though. Getting rid of two or even all of Sutter, Beagle, Roussel, Baertschi plus not signing Holtby would have gone a long way to making that possible.

 

Anyone who would want Beagle, Roussel, and Sutter at their cap hits over Toffoli at his is crazy imo. Veterans are fine to me, just make them talented ones that arent easily replaceable by 1 to 1.5 mil per year players. 

 

Its not about perfection to me. Good would have been enough. Terrible, which imo is what Benning did, is not acceptable to me. So the difference for me is between good and terrible, not perfect and good.

 

Other than drafting, Benning has done very little else I would describe as good or even average.

"Other than drafting"

 

You make it sound like drafting is an insignificant contributor to how the team has turned out so far.

[wallstreetamigo]

31 minutes ago, KoreanHockeyFan said:

"Other than drafting"

 

You make it sound like drafting is an insignificant contributor to how the team has turned out so far.

Drafting is incredibly important and Benning should be given the credit he is due for drafting relatively well.

 

Unfortunately it takes more than just drafting to build a cup winning team.

 

Benning as head of amateur scouting and a guy who can actually trade, manage a cap, and pro scout effectively in the big seat would be fine by me.

Edited March 30, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[aGENT]

9 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

When did I say young players dont need vets? Or vice versa for that matter? Vets can serve a purpose. My problem isnt with the players its with their dollars and term relative to what they actually bring. 

 

Wasting cap, especially for more than a couple of years, is never a good strategy. Whether a team is rebuilding or not.

 

Those guys having contracts expiring last year would have been much better use of the cap.

 

20 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont mean analytics at all. I am not an analytics guy. I mean the reality that young players coming in are much more polished than they used to be. They dont need veteran mentors to learn how to be a pro or whatever other bull$&!# reason is given by gm's. Veteran players on bloated contracts are fast becoming dinosaurs in the nhl. Had the cap kept increasing maybe that would not have accelerated so quickly but here we are. 

 

And that wasn't the only instance.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

 

And that wasn't the only instance.

They dont need them to learn how not to lose or how to be a pro/work hard/know how to play hockey. Young players now are way more prepared than they used to be. Mentoring and advice sure but the value of that is blown way too far out of proportion. 

 

A lot of times vets also equally need young players pushing them to stop mailing it in from their guaranteed contract and roster spot. No one really talks about that though.  Having abalance is good but if I amrunning a team I would never overpay the way Benning has for intangibles.

 

I would say EP, Horvat, Boeser, Hughes, etc were already high character guys and came in being motivated, focused, polished, and competitive. They didnt rely on Beagle and Sutter etc. to instill that. 

Edited March 30, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

They dont need them to learn how not to lose or how to be a pro/work hard/know how to play hockey. Young players now are way more prepared than they used to be. Mentoring and advice sure but the value of that is blown way too far out of proportion. 

 

A lot of times vets also equally need young players pushing them to stop mailing it in from their guaranteed contract and roster spot. No one really talks about that though.  Having abalance is good but if I amrunning a team I would never overpay the way Benning has for intangibles.

 

I would say EP, Horvat, Boeser, Hughes, etc were already high character guys and came in being motivated, focused, polished, and competitive. They didnt rely on Beagle and Sutter etc. to instill that. 

Doesn't change that you said it (and numerous times, despite denying it) or that it's completely wrong with zero shred of actual proof to contradict the actual evidence we do have.

[wallstreetamigo]

The kids need vets to not crumble into a losing culture theory is just a way to make excuses for terrible signings by Benning.

 

If none of those players had been signed the Canucks would not be any worse off than they are now.

 

I mean, Horvat is captain, right? Why not Sutter or Beagle? If that is the only reason to give them money and term why are the Canucks giving the C to a guy who according to you would have wilted without them?

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, aGENT said:

Doesn't change that you said it (and numerous times, despite denying it) or that it's completely wrong with zero shred of actual proof to contradict the actual evidence we do have.

I will clarify since you seem eager to misunderstand what I actually said. Teams need vets and young players. A mix of both. 

 

What teams dont need in a cap era is to overpay several vets on the flimsy excuse that their young players need them to show them how to win.

 

The Canucks have been winning because of production by their young players and lights out goaltending from Markstrom and now Demko. 

 

Its also interesting that with Sutter, Beagle, Roussel etc out of the lineup the team seems to actually play better.

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The kids need vets to not crumble into a losing culture theory is just a way to make excuses for terrible signings by Benning.

 

If none of those players had been signed the Canucks would not be any worse off than they are now.

 

I mean, Horvat is captain, right? Why not Sutter or Beagle? If that is the only reason to give them money and term why are the Canucks giving the C to a guy who according to you would have wilted without them?

 

Great evidence to prove your opinion.

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, aGENT said:

 

Great evidence to prove your opinion.

The only thing I agree with that you have said is that I am old lol