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


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

A veteran backup for half or less of the cap hit would have been adequate though. Every year several adequate goalies are available for cheap. Its over-insuring against a minimal to moderate at best risk.

Won't argue that.  Our start was so bad i bet he wasn't too happy about things compared to how good he had it in WSH.     A lot of little errors add up.   Not the end of the world.   As for TT yes he would have been a nice add if we didn't have Hogs and Podz coming up, OR if our cap situation was better.    Some models (THN) have Holtby going to the Kraken for the same reasons why JB picked him up for Demko, insurance.    Last year there wasn't anyone left if you re-call UFA wise there wasn't a backup left with a pedigree of also playing as a number one.   I said the whole time we need an Elliot type - but none were there.   Dallas re-signed their guy (was hoping we'd get him for one year  , think he got a three year deal)...Lehner to Vegas, Markstrom to CAL of course ... left us with Holtby or?  

 

Do agree there are a lot of backups and they aren't impossible to acquire, and usually don't cost that much via a trade. MTL picked up Allen for insurance and he's doing nothing for them right now at least  - but also get why they did.  
 

Holtby isn't a lost cause yet.   Game did get better as the season went on.   Can live with one more year of him, he was a great goalie and does have a pedigree, plus went through losing and regaining his spot once already in WSH.   For sure it's the most fickle position in Hockey.   And all of this is mute if like THN predicts, he becomes a squid or octopi or whatever that thing is.  His primarily role is to fill out expansion requirements, that is one goalie under contract.   If we picked a total dud instead, this would be a different discussion.    THN has Kraken taking Holtby to back-up Allen, then flipping at the TDL.  

Edited by IBatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2021 at 5:13 PM, BlastPast said:

The best way to atone for being unable to re-sign Toffoli would be to invest that 4.x million as effectively as possible. Off the top of my head, 3C would be a great place to put that $$$ if it's the right player/deal.

Didn't JB atone for i by signing Demko somewhat already?   And keeping some cap space for this off season and not making it even harder then it is .... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Won't argue that.  Our start was so bad i bet he wasn't too happy about things compared to how good he had it in WSH.     A lot of little errors add up.   Not the end of the world.   As for TT yes he would have been a nice add if we didn't have Hogs and Podz coming up, OR if our cap situation was better.    Some models (THN) have Holtby going to the Kraken for the same reasons why JB picked him up for Demko, insurance.    Last year there wasn't anyone left if you re-call UFA wise there wasn't a backup left with a pedigree of also playing as a number one.   I said the whole time we need an Elliot type - but none were there.   Dallas re-signed their guy (was hoping we'd get him for one year  , think he got a three year deal)...Lehner to Vegas, Markstrom to CAL of course ... left us with Holtby or?  

 

Do agree there are a lot of backups and they aren't impossible to acquire, and usually don't cost that much via a trade. MTL picked up Allen for insurance and he's doing nothing for them right now at least  - but also get why they did.  
 

Holtby isn't a lost cause yet.   Game did get better as the season went on.   Can live with one more year of him, he was a great goalie and does have a pedigree, plus went through losing and regaining his spot once already in WSH.   For sure it's the most fickle position in Hockey.   And all of this is mute if like THN predicts, he becomes a squid or octopi or whatever that thing is.  His primarily role is to fill out expansion requirements, that is one goalie under contract.   If we picked a total dud instead, this would be a different discussion.    THN has Kraken taking Holtby to back-up Allen, then flipping at the TDL.  

Holtby played pretty well around the covid break but was bad again at the end of the season which made me think his good run was more luck rather than improvement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Short term we missed the playoffs this year, long term we keep more bloated contracts off the books so we can keep the talent we have and continue to build through the draft.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Amebushi said:

What’s the point in talking to players that you aren’t planning on moving forward with?  To be perfectly clear I’m talking about Marky and Tanev, not Toffoli (I think we can agree there was a blunder there. Both players deserve the contracts they have, but wouldn’t fit into our cap situation or long term plans. This team clearly is being set up to succeed in the ‘22-‘23 season forward.
 

Demko is our goalie. How do you propose you start negotiations with Markstrom...”we plan on giving the net to Demko and exposing you (a very good goalie) in expansion where you will likely be picked and have to move with no say, please accept this lowball offer and our sincere thanks”. There was no fit for him here. 
 

Tanev is aging, and injured every year. We all love what he brings and it showed all year with Hughes just how much that is. I don’t often make predictions with a follow through, but call me out after the ‘22-‘23 season is over and tell me if you still want his contract on the books.
 

These two guys are warriors that deserve to be paid but don’t fit into the long term agenda for the Canucks. We already know what bad contracts for aging vets look like. Until they are properly replaced (Holtby will be gone either way and I know we need a big upgrade on D still) we won’t know if these moves were correct but I don’t think either one helps anything other than making our draft picks worse this year. 

 

People here are always unhappy with every move or non move that the team makes. How do we improve from our very mediocre setup if we keep signing every older version we have?  I do wish that Jim would start finding ways to trade some of them for assets before they walk but am glad that we don’t have these two part it contracts on our books right now and at the same time happy that two good guys are getting paid well for what they do. 

Home town discounts.  Players do it to be on a winning team. Some just do it. (Edler) Stecher was also in this category.
Some are distracted by their hometowns, so it’s no bargain. (Virtanen)  

 

Assest management is about leveraging everybody’s wants, needs & desires. But you have to build a foundation to have a winner, and that takes longer term relationships, both on & off the ice.
 

Sometimes you might be able to bring guys back into the fold or reconnect them to others, but randomly piling player assets in a blender each season, or coaches for that matter, ( EDM Oilers) won’t produce a championship team. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

A veteran backup for half or less of the cap hit would have been adequate though. Every year several adequate goalies are available for cheap. Its over-insuring against a minimal to moderate at best risk.

I would for say it was a moderate to high risk really.   Demko was ok during the regular season at best sheltered behind Markstrom who did all the heavy lifting.  Demko was injured in the AHL and has never had close to the workload that number ones have.    Aside from those three bubble games, the body of work wasn't up to Markstrom level (yet), or even an average starter.   Now that risk level appears minimal (but still exists).   We still don't have a big Demko sample size, we both agree it's a fickle position, it truly is i've seen dozens of promising young goalies come in, make a splash, get a 1-3 year contract and end up in the minors before it's up.    Obviously  management doesn't feel that way, and personally i'm almost positive it was by design for the ED.   Our crap season kind of kaboshed that, but given who we will be exposing and with JV out of the picture, Holtby has decent odds of getting picked up anyways.   Aside from Allen the list of goalies available certainly isn't inspiring, they need at least 3, and some teams have better guys then the more attractive goalies available.    We will find out soon, if he is picked up in the ED, then this is a non factor, job complete, if not then year there is 2-3 million in cap space we could have used somewhere else. 

 

Also as for Holtby.  In most US teams his equivalent salary would be around 3.75 to get the same net pay, even less in some.    Thank the NDP for the 53% tax bracket, instead of the 36% one in TB, Vegas, Seattle, FLD, Dallas..  Even the Alberta teams are still at 47% 

Edited by IBatch
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2021 at 3:30 PM, Nuxfanabroad said:

I wonder if we had traded away JV, & then his scandal broke, would some have accused JB of preemptively passing off tainted goods?

The media has p*ssed on our brand so often, nothing would surprise now.

When Gillis traded Hodgson and he fell off a cliff. The media acknowledged the nucks did a good job propping up his value prior to the trade via his deployment.

 

Likewise when Kassian got into his rehab issues with his first car accident. Cries of how little we got in return for him quieted down.

 

I think you'd find a similar reaction had we traded jake. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Amebushi said:

What’s the point in talking to players that you aren’t planning on moving forward with?  To be perfectly clear I’m talking about Marky and Tanev, not Toffoli (I think we can agree there was a blunder there. Both players deserve the contracts they have, but wouldn’t fit into our cap situation or long term plans. This team clearly is being set up to succeed in the ‘22-‘23 season forward.
 

Demko is our goalie. How do you propose you start negotiations with Markstrom...”we plan on giving the net to Demko and exposing you (a very good goalie) in expansion where you will likely be picked and have to move with no say, please accept this lowball offer and our sincere thanks”. There was no fit for him here. 
 

Tanev is aging, and injured every year. We all love what he brings and it showed all year with Hughes just how much that is. I don’t often make predictions with a follow through, but call me out after the ‘22-‘23 season is over and tell me if you still want his contract on the books.
 

These two guys are warriors that deserve to be paid but don’t fit into the long term agenda for the Canucks. We already know what bad contracts for aging vets look like. Until they are properly replaced (Holtby will be gone either way and I know we need a big upgrade on D still) we won’t know if these moves were correct but I don’t think either one helps anything other than making our draft picks worse this year. 

 

People here are always unhappy with every move or non move that the team makes. How do we improve from our very mediocre setup if we keep signing every older version we have?  I do wish that Jim would start finding ways to trade some of them for assets before they walk but am glad that we don’t have these two part it contracts on our books right now and at the same time happy that two good guys are getting paid well for what they do. 

@viking mamasums it pretty well here. If you aren't bringing back someone who literally bled for your organization and was an integral part of the team ("dad" for the young guns and in stechs case, friends with boeser) at least give them the courtesy of that communication. They earned at least that and it's not like they are in a bubble. Players talk to each other and how they're treated too and when players see how a core mentor was left until the last second or friends left dangling on a thread when the risk of going into the season without a contract is a real risk to their livelihoods in a flat cap covid year, you're sending a bad signal to players who are under the expection you're competing again next year.

 

There too, is the possibility of resentment that they see you pay a guy $6 million who is scratched and your fourth liners $3-4 million and but the wallet is suddenly tightened for those longtime mentors who are actually still contributing to the team better than these guys despite those injuries. Again, not discounting the context, but the lack of intent or even a modicum of effort on trying to keep these guys or show that you have their interests at heart is the underlying tone here. 

 

This can subtly bleed into other areas of the team and poison the well for future interactions.  (Like how generous they want to be with you to take cheaper contracts to keep the team together. Why take a discount when you see how mgmt treats your colleagues who left or didn't make a serious effort to keep that competitive team together.)

 

Asset management is key, and relationships is a part of that. It's just good business to not burn that bridge.

 

 

Quote

 

reported “‘miscommunications” as a trend that can harm relationship-building & the professional reputation of the organization or the persons running it. And - how does this effect the team’s ability to acquire or retain assets in the future?  
 

Benning needs to treat his players with enough respect, that they will endorse this organization & their treatment of them. When our own players report on how they have been left dangling in contract negotiations, or covid-response, and other such things, it says that Benning doesn’t care enough about them or their families’ security & happiness.
 

It’s a business, sure! But the ‘best’ businesses build lasting relationships, before, during & after any term of employment has begun or ceased.
 

The best recruitment tool is your reputation & how well your current & former employees can speak and/or testify of you. We were ignored, we were left uniformed or simply forgotten, are not statements that would sit well with me or others

 

 

Edited by DSVII
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DSVII said:

When Gillis traded Hodgson and he fell off a cliff. The media acknowledged the nucks did a good job propping up his value prior to the trade via his deployment.

 

Likewise when Kassian got into his rehab issues with his first car accident. Cries of how little we got in return for him quieted down.

 

I think you'd find a similar reaction had we traded jake. 

Trading Hodgson and not being allowed to see what he would have garnered on the open market, and jumping at the first offer is not what I call "propping up" his value. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Trading Hodgson and not being allowed to see what he would have garnered on the open market, and jumping at the first offer is not what I call "propping up" his value. 

That can be argued yes, but I was referring strictly to the media reaction to the trade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DSVII said:

@viking mamasums it pretty well here. If you aren't bringing back someone who literally bled for your organization and was an integral part of the team ("dad" for the young guns and in stechs case, friends with boeser) at least give them the courtesy of that communication. They earned at least that and it's not like they are in a bubble. Players talk to each other and how they're treated too and when players see how a core mentor was left until the last second or friends left dangling on a thread when the risk of going into the season without a contract is a real risk to their livelihoods in a flat cap covid year, you're sending a bad signal to players who are under the expection you're competing again next year.

 

There too, is the possibility of resentment that they see you pay a guy $6 million who is scratched and your fourth liners $3-4 million and but the wallet is suddenly tightened for those longtime mentors who are actually still contributing to the team better than these guys despite those injuries. Again, not discounting the context, but the lack of intent or even a modicum of effort on trying to keep these guys or show that you have their interests at heart is the underlying tone here. 

 

This can subtly bleed into other areas of the team and poison the well for future interactions.  (Like how generous they want to be with you to take cheaper contracts to keep the team together. Why take a discount when you see how mgmt treats your colleagues who left or didn't make a serious effort to keep that competitive team together.)

 

Asset management is key, and relationships is a part of that. It's just good business to not burn that bridge.

 

 

 

These are human beings. Hockey players. They are not "assets". The loss of Luc Bourdon shows he was more than an asset, he was a kid lost far too soon on a preventable accident. This isn't a house you're trying to flip, or a stock. Anything can happen, any time to a player. One wrong hit, one bad shot to the knee or back and your career can be over. You are going to lose players for nothing at times. Be it a prospect you don't have room to sign. Cap issues. Being fixated on "asset management" and not just making the best team you can is a mistake. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

These are human beings. Hockey players. They are not "assets". The loss of Luc Bourdon shows he was more than an asset, he was a kid lost far too soon on a preventable accident. This isn't a house you're trying to flip, or a stock. Anything can happen, any time to a player. One wrong hit, one bad shot to the knee or back and your career can be over. You are going to lose players for nothing at times. Be it a prospect you don't have room to sign. Cap issues. Being fixated on "asset management" and not just making the best team you can is a mistake. 

Just one man's experiences...

- He might snicker at these stated 'good intentions' in his youth

- Scratch his head a bit(about it all) in his 30's

- Start anticipating such possibilities over the next decade

- Perhaps is posting such sentiments himself, when middle-aged

 

^All a pretty good reason the GM-gig shouldn't be handed over to someone without enough life-experience. There's a certain team out east who may finally be coming to such a harsh realization.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2021 at 7:08 PM, Patel Bure said:

I agree that letting both Tanev and Markstrom walk was the correct thing to do as neither of their contracts will likely age well as we enter our ‘window.’

 

The Toffoli thing really makes me upset however, and I wonder if we could have found a way to afford him.

 

1) I get that we needed to insulate Demko with a proven back up goalie (Holtby).

 

2) I get that we needed to find another top 4 quality defenseman with the departure of Tanev (Schmidt).

 

But letting Toffoli walk is almost Inexcusable and I’m a little at a loss as to why we let him go.......especially in light of the fact that we ended up resigning Tanner Pearson.  
 

Trading Virtanen for scraps and sending Eriksson to the minors likely would have been enough, cap wise, to being Toffoli back to the fold and so I’m not sure what management was thinking on this.   
 

The only thing that I can think of is that they must be VERY confident regarding Podkolzin, but even then, why not just build three scoring lines?

 

 

Hindsight is 20-20 but it was pretty obvious that letting Toffoli go would be a mistake.  He was an excellent fit and now seeing the season he had, it's tough to watch.  Podkolzin will likely need 2-3 years before he competes for a top 6 role, so keeping Toffoli was a no-brainer.  Agree with Tanev and Markstrom and felt that way last summer.  

 

Interesting, it's easy to blame JB for the Eriksson contract with the cap problem right now but all GMs have a contracts that's bad.  But to be fair, if the Luongo cap hit penalty didn't exist (which should never have occurred), we'd still have Toffoli in the line-up.  The NHL signed off on the Luongo contract and then penalized the Canucks afterwards without a chance to amend the contract.  If they didn't like it, they should have not signed off on it......or they should have made the rule change effective with his contracts prior to the rule change exempt.  I'm still wondering how that was legal and why the Canucks didn't make a bigger deal of that.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2021 at 2:35 PM, Elias Pettersson said:

What makes you think a top 10 pick like Podkolzin who’s already played 2 years of pro hockey against men is going to take 2-3 years to crack the top 6?  Didn’t Hoglander, a 2nd round pick in the same draft and who is about 25 pounds lighter, crack the top 6 in his rookie year?  
 

Podkolzin is a much bigger player than Hoglander. And has more talent, which is why he was a top 10 pick. Benning already stated he will be in the top 6 as soon as he arrives in Vancouver. There is nothing to suggest any of that has changed. 

That's fair.....and I used the word "likely" because there's no certainty either way and a "top 6 player" is a bit subjective based on what team you're considering.  What I'm really referring to is a solid top 6 player on most teams as opposed to a non-playoff level such as the Canucks this season.  I do think he's likely to be 2-3 years away from being a solid top 6 player as he gets up to speed with the NHL (2 years isn't long!).  Hoglander really impressed me but the last decade has skewed our interpretation of the caliber of play you should have from the four different lines. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Had we not traded for toffoli at all, but still made the playoffs. Where does Madden and the second rounder fit now? Madden had an injury but got a few points in the ahl. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, austy said:

Had we not traded for toffoli at all, but still made the playoffs. Where does Madden and the second rounder fit now? Madden had an injury but got a few points in the ahl. 

I don't look at the loss of Madden and a 2nd.  I look at the loss of a proven player who was a good fit that the Canucks let go for nothing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...