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

4 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

So if the Canucks low-ball Edler, and Sutter and they walk will you freak out still? Because that's possible. 

I'm pretty sure Edler will retire. I don't see Sutter being re-signed and they'll probably let AG walk as well. The focus, obviously, is going to be locking up Petterson, Hughes, and Demko and I'm sure Benning will make some sacrifices to do so. Tanner Pearson's contract is also up. He may not be back either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

I don't think this has already been mentioned, but Calgary sits exactly the same spot as we are, with only just a game in hand. Markstrom and Tanev wasn't that much of a loss in hindsight.

maybe Tanev has much more value to us than he has for CGY. Hughes struggling defensively is a critical collateral damage that whould weight in the balance.

for the OP : 
Tanev was a keeper. no hindsight, that's the big mistake i pointed out at the time, and still stick with this. Hamonic start to be a decent replacement, tho, but he's UFA et the end of the year which means it could be a disaster. 
Markstrom was the good move. It's Demko's net, you don't let him go, especially for Markstrom at 6x6. Holtby... i understand the move, but if its Demko's net, you don't sign an overpriced backup. 
Toffoli... well i was ok letting him go because i didn't see him as a huge factor. Nonetheless, for the term he has signed with MTL i may have kept him. Demote Pearson to the 3rd line and bring in Hoglander as planned. 
 

Tanev alone at 4x2-3years would have not prevent us to sign Hughes and Petterson. its Sutter's money after all, but would have cost us Virtanen.

next big moves to address for JB : though times for say the least

 

Edler, Tryamkin, Petey, Hughes, Demlko and even Hamonic. 
Edler : the wrong move is to re sign him. it's time for the last player of the orca era to fly. (and take the orca with him). 

Tryamkin : ink him ASAP ! i'm genuinely worried about him. I say everywhere it could be the next big thing. no pun attended. i give him 3x3

Hughes : its not about lowball him, but i will not give him 7ish money due to his defensive play. i may give him a 5.5M/3 years bridge deal. (For this purpose only the departure of Tanev could be a blessing in disguise)

Petey : health start to be a concern. but i guess he ends up with 7x4 deal or something like that. 

Demko... well 4.5M max if we are serious about him. 

Hamonic : i say last day someting like 3x3 (last part of Edler money, the other part goes to Tryamkin). with all the signing above we may running out of money. maybe we can keep him under 2M with a NMC for him to stay in west canada as he wish...

 

its a do or die signing period for JB and the futur of the canucks. We kown JB for his scounting skills, but now he needs to put his "ballz" on the table, just aside the calcul machine.

 

Edited by deus.ex.makina
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Provost said:

Actually the story was that his camp finally got a call (days after free agency started), saying that they might make an offer later if something else didn’t work out.

 

He then made a deal with Calgary.

 

Both Tanev and Benning gave pieces of that story publicly as I recall.

And from what I heard from the reports coming out of Sportsnet is that Tanev was basically ignoring Benning's calls.

 

Ouch 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, grouse747 said:

and no, I don't think Toffoli would have made a big difference for the Canucks this season. just another nice piece.... and you can make a strong argument that the Canucks need another top defenseman, not another forward. maybe should have kept TT and moved someone else

 

Those 30 pts and 18 goals wouldn't have made a difference? 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iinatcc said:

Those 30 pts and 18 goals wouldn't have made a difference? 

To be fair: a huge amount of his goals were against a very weak Canucks Defense. i don't think he would have keep his scoring pace under Green system, and against good defense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Devron44 said:

Ah yes I do remember that! Benning said that. I believe mid next day he signed with Calgary 

A typical ”save face” statement by Benning. 
He’s made a few of those since I got to this forum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gameburn said:

A sign that Benning is kind of fading/losing it is that he appears not to have made any early efforts to do a couple of the low-hanging fruit contracts: Stecher and Toffoli in particular.  He says things like, "we're taking it day by day," and "we'll get into the contracts when the season is over, one thing at a time."  Delegate this work if you have to, but you have to get this done and the best way imo is to start early and stick with it.  It sometimes helps other players to see a guy they want to continue playing with get treated well, including signing him during the season and well before the contract he is on is going to run out.  (When Alphonso Davies started to show he was the real deal at Munich the management ripped up his old contract and offered him a new one at twice the money!  If Munich had been a Canadian hockey team they'd have never made a new deal, and would have found a way to try and low ball him when that initial contract was finally up.  Bayern has it right: this is how you keep players and attract new ones.)  Management doesn't have that much to do, really, early in the season, prior to TDL and the draft.  May as well use it for getting the team in place for the next year and maybe even the year after that.

 

The signing of Holtby is the kicker though: might really have been the worst since Eriksson: 2 years worth of mid-range money for a back up.  When you're already short cap space?  And Holtby was only available because of his age and generally poor recent play.  Ryan Miller he wasn't. (And Miller wasn't a back up, either.)  Demko on the other hand showed he could play in the last playoff run.  Holtby for one year would have been almost as bad.

 

The pattern continues: Canucks aren't managing the Boeser situation very well either: bridge deals and it would appear no effort to make it really clear to him that he is as important to the team as Hughes, Horvat and Pettersson.

It all comes down to earlier poor decisions: overpaying/overextending older players who are thought to have some magic ability to mentor. Or who just seem to have a magic tenure/nmc aura. (I'm thinking of Edler here.)  Beagle, Eriksson, Sutter, Roussel: all albatross contracts.  We keep Edler but find a way to lose Tanev, who actually was mentoring a budding star.  Find a way to avoid getting rid of Eriksson and thus end up losing a Toffoli (and Leivo) and soon enough Pearson. 

 

And I don't think it helps the surviving core of players to see this kind of incompetence: very bad for morale I'm guessing. Probably a factor in the atrocious start to this season.

 

The reason that Draisaitl and McDavid never asked to be traded is that I suspect they were promised better management in the future; hope in other words. If I were the owner of the Canucks I would consider talking to the key four players here about that kind of hope. (Well, five core players now, counting Demko.)  

You have to treat your players the best you can and be honest to them. 
 

The anchor to this team is Benning. Not Loui or any other contract. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CptCanuck16 said:

I'm pretty sure Edler will retire. I don't see Sutter being re-signed and they'll probably let AG walk as well. The focus, obviously, is going to be locking up Petterson, Hughes, and Demko and I'm sure Benning will make some sacrifices to do so. Tanner Pearson's contract is also up. He may not be back either. 

Based on what? He's still one of our best defensive defensemen even at 34. He'll more likely remain here at a reduced rate but I heard nothing of him retiring, so I'm not sure how you're almost certain of it.

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Benning was caught up in the Oliver Ekmon Larsson trade deadline talk where OEL stated he would only accept a trade to either VAN or BOS.

I cannot fault Benning for persueing a quality Dman like OEL 

Unfortunately Tanev renegotiations suffered because of it

Tanev was running out of time and could wait no longer to get re-signed and took a very generous offer from CGY.

If the OEL situation wasn't there, I believe Tanev would have re-signed with us

Having Demko meant there was to be no room for Markstrom to re-sign

and the fact that Seattle would have surely poached Demko from us in the expansion draft made it a no brainer to keep Demko and walk away from Markstrom.

Benning was saved by having Schmidt gifted to him by LV for a 3rd

 

Edited by Mackcanuck
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Squamfan doesn't believe in evidence that argues against his perspective, which is to bash Benning at all costs.

Honestly that is not low balling. Furthermore, do you not know how a negotiation works? It starts off low... and then the demands are hopefully met in the middle.

There was literally a thread where Pro-Benning guys were doing the same with Friedman and Dhaliwal heh. Discrediting media that could otherwise offer insight into the workings of the Canucks.

 

Anyways yes, I know what negotiating is. Like I said the point of contention is that this happened on day one of UFA and not the weeks before. There was no time for the usual back and forth because communicating was left to the eleventh hour after Benning exhausted talks with OEL, and to my knowledge, did not communicate with Tanev's camp until that offer on day 1. For a guy that's been here 10 years and to come up with the first offer that late and low balled as well to start negotiations? Wouldn't be surprised If Tanev was a bit miffed.

 

Tanev then told Benning "he'd sleep on it" and decided to sign that afternoon with Calgary, who most likely contacted him earlier with the offer he wanted. And did the back and forth grunt work days or weeks before.

 

We will probably find out in later years what really went down. But the optics of that aren't pretty. Or reflective of a professional management group. I'm not putting all this on Benning, if he's focused on one thing he has executives to delegate to. What the heck was Weisbrod doing...

 

 

 

 

Edited by DSVII
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DSVII said:

There was literally a thread where Pro-Benning guys were doing the same with Friedman and Dhaliwal heh. Discrediting media that could otherwise offer insight into the workings of the Canucks.

 

Anyways yes, I know what negotiating is. Like I said the point of contention is that this happened on day one of UFA and not the weeks before. There was no time for the usual back and forth because communicating was left to the eleventh hour after Benning exhausted talks with OEL, and to my knowledge, did not communicate with Tanev's camp until that offer on day 1. For a guy that's been here 10 years and to come up with the first offer that late and low balled as well to start negotiations? Wouldn't be surprised If Tanev was a bit miffed.

 

Tanev then told Benning "he'd sleep on it" and decided to sign that afternoon with Calgary, who most likely contacted him earlier with the offer he wanted. 

 

We will probably find out in later years what really went down. But the optics of that aren't pretty. Or reflective of a professional management group. I'm not putting all this on Benning, if he's focused on one thing he has executives to delegate to. What the heck was Weisbrod doing...

 

 

 

 

Don't worry, this won't be a "story" in ten years either.   These guys are pro athletes, and if JB says publicly weeks before the end that not everyone is coming back, you can bet agents new where they stood.   Tanev was offered a deal.   It was one that worked for the team (4 x 2 wasn't it?),  Tanev did sleep on it.    The rest is history.   It's nothing like in the mid 90's when the team let Ronning go (massive mistake), and then blew a deal with Wayne Gretzky when there wasn't a cap hit, to play with Bure and Mogilny (now that hurts).   Eventually settling on ... Messier.   Argh. 

 

TT was a rental, we paid that cost - the team gained experience etc,  not hard to move on from that, even without Hogs.   Team should have an eye to the future cap which is coming up soon enough in EP and QHs.   

 

Markstrom.   Very good odds CAL will go down with the ship on that one either way, we don't need him, sure Demko hasn't played enough but we'd have lost him for a very low return or to Seattle.   Absolutely the right call even now that's obvious.

 

On TT.   We can afford to add later.   He's not a star in this league although yes he's on a good contract and yes if it was a year from now would love to have him.   But it's not.  

 

Edit:   Also on the "pro" or "anti" Benning crowd.    I'm sure that the vast majority in this site don't identify as either pro or anti anything.   There is a lot of grey between the black and white.   

Edited by IBatch
  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, IBatch said:

That's such utter BS - if you re-call he made offers to both Tanev and Markstrom,  TT is the only player he didn't "get around too".    Tanev slept on it and went to CAL.    

 

So much whining on this site about how that shook out,  aside from Holtby's less then average NHL goaltending, it's all worked out just fine.   Start of the season it was all about why didn't we sign Markstrom (from the ones making noise, most saw that contract and felt we'd dodged a bullet - plus we'd lose Demko good grief that ones easy), then TT padding his stars against us created an uproar - sorry I will take Hogs, plays harder and doesn't have games where he's invisible ever.   

 

Schmidt > Tanev.   When Tanev goes down maybe folks will remember that's as expected as the sun going down.   Too long.   Fair price though.    Miss him the most.    TT has scored 30 goals once in his career, last season BB was the one  people wanted out, TT in after 12 freaking games.   The stupidity on this site can be a little over the top at times.  

 

Hoped he'd let all three go, because this off season is the one he needed to set himself up for, and it's exactly what he did.   CAL was supposed to be the best in the North this year, four ex Canucks and wow not following the script right?   Wonder how many more points TT will get now?   Way to early to judge any of this anyways.   Like two years too early.

 

Why would going with the exact same team (minus LE, Demko, minus JV and probably one or all of JV, Podz, Hogs, a first rounder to shed cap under covid to get them all shoe horned, only to be in the exact same cap hell this off season) mean playoffs?   Vegas spanked us, we need better players, not more of the same, by locking in 80 million over 4-6 years .... wow.   

 

IMO this was one of JB best or luckiest off seasons.   Holtby is a bit of a miss, but palatable under the circumstances, Demko even now, is still not a for sure thing.   Boucher and two dozen other goalies say hello - one i can't even remember his name anymore, won 22ish games in OTT a few years ago out of the gate and now is gone.   The league knows about Demko, like we know about Samsanov .. ie there are others like Demko right now.   

 

The luck comes in from Schmidt.   Under normal circumstances he's a tradeable asset we got for a third rounder.    We for Vegas second best D since they came into the league, at a fair "Vegas/TB" cap hit, in his prime,  for a 12% chance of that pick ever playing 200 nhl games.    We need more Schmidt/Myers/ prime Edler types not less.   Hamonic has mostly done what Tanev managed with QHs, at 30% of the cost.    

 

Aside from the first 15 games, this team percentage wise, is winning at a similar or slightly better clip then we did last year,  without EP for 10 or so games to boot, and against teams we simply sucked against last season.

 

To me anyways, this season is part of the growing pains.   The roster we will compete with won't look much like this one anyways,  going to be one more year of transition....we've almost made it through the 6 years of LE's contract lol.   Get that's quite a good chunk of time.   I don't like it either, but if we have to get impatient and mad about the process, write some letters to Bettman and show your distaste to him - that's the correct target.   Used to be with 21 teams, you could make the show below .500.   Those days are long gone.   Rebuilds - and this team now only has Edler still on it, at least for now, take a lot longer then they used to.   3-4 years now is 6-7.   Stupid really.    Can see why re-tools are used over and over again until you finally have to pay the piper.     We almost have.   CAR missed 9 in a row .... two rebuilds in there really.    Now look at them.   The best young cores, most of the time, become the best teams.  Our time will come and really it's almost there now. 

A good piece of contrarian logic.  I do like the way you bring up the way rebuilds seem to take longer and feel a lot less certain.

 

Let's look at things from a slightly different angle: has our "new" GM of X number of years ago learned enough to keep him for another year, or should he be fired at the end of the year or even sooner?  This is where your comment on "growing pains" comes in.

 

Pros: 

(1) Has learned not to trade away 2nd and 3rd round picks for other teams' reject prospects (Linden Vey was the worst, but there were many.) 

(2) Has learned not to sign 30-plus year-olds to long-term deals (rejected Markstrom and Tanev for these reasons, unlike Eriksson, Beagle.)

(3) related to (2): now signs 30-year olds to short-term deals (Hamonic, and to a degree Schmidt here.  Edler for 2 years, too, and Holtby for 2.) 

(4) Has learned to trade better: e.g., dumping Gudbranson in favour of Tanner Pearson.  Although it looks on the surface like we are lacking D, in fact, Gudbranson didn't work out here. (We'll leave aside the trade that brought G. here.)

 

Cons:

(1) still trades away draft picks/prospects for players that other teams seem to get off of us for free in the off-season.  (J.T. Miller, Schmidt, and of course Toffoli for Madden AND a second round pick, lol.)

(2) still seems to value "experience" and a player's past achievements on a winning team above the real value of a player -- e.g., Holtby, and to some extent J.T. Miller, Toffoli, Pearson, and of course Beagle.  Not the money ball type of evaluator. 

(3) "the growing pains" were made worse by the Eriksson deal HE SIGNED.  And worse again by signing Sutter, Roussel and in particular Beagle.  All we need is for Myers to begin aging prematurely and we really have a catastrophe. 

 

Intangibles: (a) he's actually been unlucky in the draft: no number 1 pick in spite of finishing bottom of the league a couple of times.  New Jersey got those lol. Another piece of bad luck: (b) the Luongo re-capture debacle.  This was Gillis's work, not Benning's.  That 3 million would have kept us Tanev or Toffoli.

 

On balance, he's learned a lot, but has not corrected the tendency to over-value older players like Beagle, Eriksson and Edler.  This is a fatal flaw in an era where players now peak at 23 to 27 years of age.  His other tendency of trading away picks for short-term fixes is not nearly as problematic, because the likes of J.T. Miller and even Toffoli really do make a difference.

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Don't worry, this won't be a "story" in ten years either.   These guys are pro athletes, and if JB says publicly weeks before the end that not everyone is coming back, you can bet agents new where they stood.   Tanev was offered a deal.   It was one that worked for the team (4 x 2 wasn't it?),  Tanev did sleep on it.    The rest is history.   It's nothing like in the mid 90's when the team let Ronning go (massive mistake), and then blew a deal with Wayne Gretzky when there wasn't a cap hit, to play with Bure and Mogilny (now that hurts).   Eventually settling on ... Messier.   Argh. 

 

TT was a rental, we paid that cost - the team gained experience etc,  not hard to move on from that, even without Hogs.   Team should have an eye to the future cap which is coming up soon enough in EP and QHs.   

 

Markstrom.   Very good odds CAL will go down with the ship on that one either way, we don't need him, sure Demko hasn't played enough but we'd have lost him for a very low return or to Seattle.   Absolutely the right call even now that's obvious.

 

On TT.   We can afford to add later.   He's not a star in this league although yes he's on a good contract and yes if it was a year from now would love to have him.   But it's not.  

 

Edit:   Also on the "pro" or "anti" Benning crowd.    I'm sure that the vast majority in this site don't identify as either pro or anti anything.   There is a lot of grey between the black and white.   

Kinda funny to be told repeatedly how bad CANUCK ownership and management are. Interfering ownership, incompetent management in ALL aspects of the game and yes a very poor coach who really doesn’t know what he is doing. After all he is not a veteran coach. 
 

What happens in Calgary when they miss playoffs? After all they are further along the development curve than Vancouver. Johnny Hockey, gone! Are they in for another rebuild? Does Sutter commit to another 5-7 years? 
 

How does the tire fire in Buffalo get put out? Vancouver has problems??? 
 

Trade the vets that are not in the plans. Play the prospects. Reassess at years end as per normal. Get Podz and Tryamkin signed. Draft a top 10 prospect. Oh ya, cut Hughes TOI down to 20 minutes! If the decision is to let Green go kidnap Trotz! When the choice was between Willie and Barry they should have offered him 5% of the team as a signing bonus! Hey, sign me up as Pres!

  • Hydration 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Squamfan said:

Benning never even talked to Tanev which pissed him off, he only tried to call him when he found out he was signing in Calgary

Well just because you say it, does not make it true

 

Trumpism

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CptCanuck16 said:

I'm pretty sure Edler will retire. I don't see Sutter being re-signed and they'll probably let AG walk as well. The focus, obviously, is going to be locking up Petterson, Hughes, and Demko and I'm sure Benning will make some sacrifices to do so. Tanner Pearson's contract is also up. He may not be back either. 

AG walk? sorry i do not agree with that statement. 

Edler will play 1 more year imho

Pearson's injury timing sucks and i agree that he will probably not be back

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ABNuck said:

We got to keep Eriksson, Sutter, Beagle and Roussel...so there's that...

sarcasm? or just more bashing on Sutter Beagle and Roussel?

 

How's' the last few games been without a healthy Sutter, Beagle in the linup?

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -SN- changed the title to what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?

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...