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

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

Rate this topic


grouse747

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

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.

Pettersson too! Lol 

 

Something, something correlation. Something, something causation.

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Are they playing worse?

 

Thats what I thought bud.

They've been scoring a lot less goals without those guys to eat up hard minutes. That sounds worse.

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

They've been scoring a lot less goals without those guys to eat up hard minutes. That sounds worse.

I would think that missing Pettersen has a much bigger impact on the streaky offense than missing either of those two guys does.

 

I would say the team overall has actually played better defensively lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I would think that missing Pettersen has a much bigger impact on the streaky offense than missing either of those two guys does.

 

I would say the team overall has actually played better defensively lately.

We were still scoring before Sutter and Beagle went out. They play the hard minutes to facilitate easier, offensive minutes for our young, talented core.

 

With them out, yes the team must play much lower event hockey (just like the 'rope-a-dope' style we were forced to play while hobbled against Vegas last playoff). We sit back, we allow lots of shots (mostly) from the outside and we don't push the pace. It means we score less.

 

I'd hardly call that 'better'.

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

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

We were still scoring before Sutter and Beagle went out. They play the hard minutes to facilitate easier, offensive minutes for our young, talented core.

 

With them out, yes the team must play much lower event hockey (just like the 'rope-a-dope' style we were forced to play while hobbled against Vegas last playoff). We sit back, we allow lots of shots (mostly) from the outside and we don't push the pace. It means we score less.

The team has allowed tons of shots all season long and not just from the outside.

 

I have seen very little actual change in how the team plays style wise with or without either of those guys. I have not seen this sudden shift to trap hockey especially from our forwards and Hughes. They are still bleeding chances by being too aggressive offensively just like they did with those guys in the lineup. So it doesnt seem the team got your memo that they have to become the trap era njd without their two offense by playing defense catalysts out of the lineup 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The team has allowed tons of shots all season long and not just from the outside.

 

I have seen very little actual change in how the team plays style wise with or without either of those guys. I have not seen this sudden shift to trap hockey especially from our forwards and Hughes. They are still bleeding chances by being too aggressive offensively just like they did with those guys in the lineup. So it doesnt seem the team got your memo that they have to become the trap era njd without their two offense by playing defense catalysts out of the lineup 

I didn't say they were playing the trap.

 

And which is it?

 

47 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I would say the team overall has actually played better defensively lately.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I didn't say they were playing the trap.

 

And which is it?

 

 

Playing the same style they have been playing and playing better defensively are not mutually exclusive bud.

 

Maybe forcing some other players to pay more attention defensively is a good thing.

Edited by wallstreetamigo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Playing the same style they have been playing and playing better defensively are not mutually exclusive bud.

 

Maybe forcing some other players to pay more attention defensively is a good thing.

They're not playing the same.

 

Rope

 

A

 

Dope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

Not sure how you see that but like I said, we can agree to disagree bud.

Same way I saw them change their play between playing MIN and STL and playing VGK once we had injuries... Just like we have injuries now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Same way I saw them change their play between playing MIN and STL and playing VGK once we had injuries... Just like we have injuries now.

The style is pretty much the same. The execution and attention to detail is better though. But they arent really sitting back and playing passive at all and trying to counterattack based on what I have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just reading the thread title. Nothing. That's a double (triple) negative!

 

Tofolli could have ended up being a third liner making $4.2 a year. Much like Pearson we don't have room for him moving forward, especially if Podkolzin, or someone else (UFA) can can move into that role. Which we want. So Tofolli is out. Markstrom is out, obviously his contract sucks, and he is not doing good. Also, Tanev, we had to move on from our stale D, despite what Tanev provided. His contract will also suck in the future. 

 

Great decisions. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2021 at 6:42 PM, BlastPast said:

Not having Toffoli now certainly sucks, but it does mean there is ~4.25 in cap space that will be available in the next few years that otherwise would not be there. If this can be put to good use in time it's possible that there can be some positive externalities from not signing him.

Only TT should have been kept and Lazy Jake should have never been resigned - he's a dud.   Marky and Tanev would have been nice to have for another year but not long term and at those salaries and Stecher was another tiny defenceman easily replaced like Leivo (although I did like him).  So on the whole he did the right thing and for the first time ever I saw JB actually make some hard decisions rather than resign those older injury prone players to long term, overpriced No Trade "Loui Eriksson type" Contracts (His specialty).  

Hopefully he does the same this year and next with our bottom 6 players and washed out defensemen who's contract are coming up.   They all need to go !  This team is too slow and lacks grit, size and strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:

Just reading the thread title. Nothing. That's a double (triple) negative!

 

Tofolli could have ended up being a third liner making $4.2 a year. Much like Pearson we don't have room for him moving forward, especially if Podkolzin, or someone else (UFA) can can move into that role. Which we want. So Tofolli is out. Markstrom is out, obviously his contract sucks, and he is not doing good. Also, Tanev, we had to move on from our stale D, despite what Tanev provided. His contract will also suck in the future. 

 

Great decisions. 

 

 

Sutter could have ended up being a 3rd/4th liner at similar money and term as Toffoli signed years earlier. Oh, ya that happened.

 

Eriksson could have become a press box warrior at 6 mil per. Hmmm.

 

Myers could have become a 3rd pair D at 6 mil per for 5 years. Yep, noticing a pattern.

 

Beagle and Roussel were 4th liners the day their contracts were signed and still are.

 

Toffoli is on pace for the equivalent of what a 40 or 50 goal season? But clearly signing him to what is a realistic and even cheap contract for a top line winger after trading a bunch of assets to get him was the risky move.

 

Benning absolutely $&!# the bed on Toffoli. Lets just admit that. Could have even switched him to left wing with Horvat when Podz and others get to the lineup.

 

Miller-Petterssen-Boeser

Toffoli-Horvat-Hoglander

Virtanen-Gaudette-Podkolzin

 

Despite the hate for Virtanen and the possibility of Gaudette not being able to stick as a center at the NHL level, the team could do a lot worse than that top 9. Add in a few vets on cheap short term contracts to play on the 4th line or to split up that 3rd line a bit.

 

We will certainly see soon if Benning has learned his lesson on signing overpriced vets. Lets hope when his already terrible too long, too expensive contracts for veteran depth players expire he doesnt repeat the same mistakes again. I suspect he will though, filling up any cap space with filler like a kid with 5 bucks burning a hole in his pocket pocket and then losing good assets when he cant afford them. Nothing in his history suggests otherwise unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

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. 

your welcome

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...