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

[aGENT]

20 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

So let me ask you this.

 

If Benning say resigns Sutter and Pearson to 4 year 4+ mil deals, or adds more big money vet depth in free agency this year, what will you think?

It's not happening but in magical alternate universe-land, sure, I'll be right there with folks saying it's a bad move to re-sign the likes of Sutter on a $4x4 deal.

 

Quote

JB has given no indication at all that he is changing gears as you propose. And he has a coach who clearly wants veteran depth players.

He actually made a statement towards that end in his most recent interview. It's also been patently obvious to anyone paying attention.

 

Quote

I hope I am wrong and JBfinallyhas learned exactly what you are saying after being burned so many times especially on term.

It's not a 'learned' issue. How hard is it to actually recognize the changing circumstances? The evolution of the rebuild and team? The team is not in the same place it was 3-5 years ago. Is it shocking that that would in turn change how you manage the club as a natural evolution of that plan?

 

Seriously...

Edited March 28, 2021 by aGENT

[aGENT]

15 minutes ago, gurn said:

Neither of those two are worth that term any more, too many miles on them.

Sutter for 2 yrs  at $3.25- 3.5 mill maybe, but I'd like Beagle gone if so.

I think Pearson should not be kept, that spot will be filled by Hoglander switching back to left wing, makes room for Podz on right.

With covid and depth, vet players getting squeezed, Sutter is simply not going to make even your proposed dollar amount. He's looking at $1-1.5 on a contender, $1.5-2 on a bubble team like ours or $2-2.5 on another rebuilding bottom feeder (give or take a few hundred K) IMO.

Edited March 28, 2021 by aGENT

[CptCanuck16]

29 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

The problem is, we've already tried the cheap/unproven player model. It doesn't work if your roster is not structured.

You forgot to mention the cheap/unproven coaching model combined with the young unstructured core. Its been a recipe for disaster from WD on through to Green yet half of CDC doesn't want to see a change made.

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, gameburn said:

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.

 

Contrarian logic is your last few paragraphs.   How old are they again?   In their primes.   Naslund was 27 when he broke out.  The Sedins had their best seasons at 30ish, Burns won a Norris in his early 30's and Lidstrom didn't win one until his early 30's.   Yes it's a young hockey players game now,  all as a result of cap pushing out the middle class citizens over what is next (cheaper, but not necessarily better).   It's not so simple as black and white is it?   Oh add Marchand to the list. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by IBatch

[wallstreetamigo]

27 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It's not happening but in magical alternate universe-land, sure, I'll be right there with folks saying it's a bad move to re-sign the likes of Sutter on a $4x4 deal.

 

He actually made a statement towards that end in his most recent interview. It's also been patently obvious to anyone paying attention.

 

It's not a 'learned' issue. How hard is it to actually recognize the changing circumstances? The evolution of the rebuild and team? The team is not in the same place it was 3-5 years ago. Is it shocking that that would in turn change how you manage the club as a natural evolution of that plan?

 

Seriously...

Like I said, its not hard to recognize the changing landscape. Its just that nothing Benning has done actually gives me any confidence he actually sees it.

 

I will put it out there right now. This offseason Benning will sign at least one long term veteran role player or redundant player to a $&!#ty contract in dollars and term. 

 

If I am proven wrong by the start of next season I will retire from cdc permanently.

[Dazzle]

17 minutes ago, CptCanuck16 said:

You forgot to mention the cheap/unproven coaching model combined with the young unstructured core. Its been a recipe for disaster from WD on through to Green yet half of CDC doesn't want to see a change made.

Oh no, I fully agree with you. WD/Green has not been working. It's sad that Green's roster is so much more experienced than WD, and yet it feels like he's not getting the most out of this roster.

[Johnny Torts]

what did we gain from this thread

[oldnews]

22 hours ago, grouse747 said:

simple question,

 

would re-resigning one of the 3 have made it very tricky to give QH and EP the long-term contracts they deserve?

 

or did we not re-sign any of them to give us some flexibility to add a few much cheaper pieces over the next couple of years?

 

I think Toffoli was the obvious one to keep......... Markstrom would have been the no-brainer without Demko here.

 

I did go back 5 or 6 pages of the forum to try to find a Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli thread to append this question.. no luck.

 

thanks in advance  ... and it's not a rhetorical question. I actually don't know/remember the answer.... 

If you want the opinions of the forum, it's probably better to read the signings threads in the Trades, Rumours, Signings forum.

 

Gain?  It's not really a question of "gain".

 

It was a question of whether you want to commit to Markstrom - or Demko - moving forward.

The fact of the expansion draft pretty much dictated a (premature but inevitable) decision regarding them - a clear either/or option.  The only way around that was if Markstrom had been willing to forego a NMC to stay here - which he got from Calgary.

 

When you go with the young goaltender - you pretty much choose the longer game trajectory of the team - the timeline that fits better with the young, emerging core....

So there is somewhat of a domino effect imo - and further, in choosing Demko - you also choose more cap flexibility - (save cap in the short run, but more importantly are not committed to the extra 4 yrs at 6 million + NMC that you would be committed to with Marky.

 

Toffoli - is a RW - a position the team has Boeser, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Virtanen, Lind, (Gaudette - imo tracking as a RW - not particularly capable of playing the center role at the NHL level - and certainly not in bottom six type minutes).    Signing Toffoli - gives you overlapping top 6RW - limits the opportunities you can offer Hoglander (and Podkolzin).  Not an easy pill to swallow after acquiring him - but also not the same conditions under which he was acquired (pre-Covid cap stall).

 

Tanev - would have been the one I would have prioritized of the three - but again, in terms of the young core's trajectory - a longer term partner for Hughes remains a/the priority of this team - but whether and how well they're able to fill that role - remains open/a possibility.  Personally I value Tanev highly - don't consider his impact easy to replace - and the downside of his moving on - particularly in the shorter term, is that in the interim, Hughes does not have as quality a partner as he broke in with.   That said - I like what Schmidt brings (although not in the same role) - and if the team can draft, or acquire a good RHD partner for Hughes this might turn out alright in the end.... (ie with expansion approaching Tampa won't be able to protect Cal Foote....)

 

But the "gain", really, was in the cap and roster flexibility they retain moving forward.  It's a 'sacrifice' - with a view to the longer game (a few years in the future) - but ironically, this market allegedly wanted the 'long game' all along.   Now that the team actually has the drafted youth to move into key positions....people are losing their patience that the core hasn't won soon enough.  How realistic it is, however, for 20 and 21 year olds to drive a team to a Stanley Cup - is largely a matter of perspective.  A fair amount of people around here believe guys like Hughes are in their "prime" - so perspective - helps - imo.

[philtbc829]

21 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

#FireBenning #FireGreenandallcoaches

[wallstreetamigo]

15 minutes ago, oldnews said:

If you want the opinions of the forum, it's probably better to read the signings threads in the Trades, Rumours, Signings forum.

 

Gain?  It's not really a question of "gain".

 

It was a question of whether you want to commit to Markstrom - or Demko - moving forward.

The fact of the expansion draft pretty much dictated a (premature but inevitable) decision regarding them - a clear either/or option.  The only way around that was if Markstrom had been willing to forego a NMC to stay here - which he got from Calgary.

 

When you go with the young goaltender - you pretty much choose the longer game trajectory of the team - the timeline that fits better with the young, emerging core....

So there is somewhat of a domino effect imo - and further, in choosing Demko - you also choose more cap flexibility - (save cap in the short run, but more importantly are not committed to the extra 4 yrs at 6 million + NMC that you would be committed to with Marky.

 

Toffoli - is a RW - a position the team has Boeser, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Virtanen, Lind, (Gaudette - imo tracking as a RW - not particularly capable of playing the center role at the NHL level - and certainly not in bottom six type minutes).    Signing Toffoli - gives you overlapping top 6RW - limits the opportunities you can offer Hoglander (and Podkolzin).  Not an easy pill to swallow after acquiring him - but also not the same conditions under which he was acquired (pre-Covid cap stall).

 

Tanev - would have been the one I would have prioritized of the three - but again, in terms of the young core's trajectory - a longer term partner for Hughes remains a/the priority of this team - but whether and how well they're able to fill that role - remains open/a possibility.  Personally I value Tanev highly - don't consider his impact easy to replace - and the downside of his moving on - particularly in the shorter term, is that in the interim, Hughes does not have as quality a partner as he broke in with.   That said - I like what Schmidt brings (although not in the same role) - and if the team can draft, or acquire a good RHD partner for Hughes this might turn out alright in the end.... (ie with expansion approaching Tampa won't be able to protect Cal Foote....)

 

But the "gain", really, was in the cap and roster flexibility they retain moving forward.  It's a 'sacrifice' - with a view to the longer game (a few years in the future) - but ironically, this market allegedly wanted the 'long game' all along.   Now that the team actually has the drafted youth to move into key positions....people are losing their patience that the core hasn't won soon enough.  How realistic it is, however, for 20 and 21 year olds to drive a team to a Stanley Cup - is largely a matter of perspective.  A fair amount of people around here believe guys like Hughes are in their "prime" - so perspective - helps - imo.

Fair points. I do think transitioning Toffoli to LW would probably have been a pretty viable solution though. He is a defensively solid winger with a good shot/offensive instincts and being on his off wing might have actually worked out well. Hard to say. 

 

There is a significant roster issue if you need to let guys like Toffoli and Tanev walk to get cap/roster flexibility though, dont you think?

 

I know for me I dont think its realistic to expect this team as constructed to seriously compete for a cup for at least 3 years. I wiuld hope for 1 or 2 but its not likely to happen with this much cap waste.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Like I said, its not hard to recognize the changing landscape. Its just that nothing Benning has done actually gives me any confidence he actually sees it.

 

I will put it out there right now. This offseason Benning will sign at least one long term veteran role player or redundant player to a $&!#ty contract in dollars and term. 

 

If I am proven wrong by the start of next season I will retire from cdc permanently.

OK Kreskin. Have fun with that.

[Arrow 1983]

22 hours ago, grouse747 said:

simple question,

 

would re-resigning one of the 3 have made it very tricky to give QH and EP the long-term contracts they deserve?

 

or did we not re-sign any of them to give us some flexibility to add a few much cheaper pieces over the next couple of years?

 

I think Toffoli was the obvious one to keep......... Markstrom would have been the no-brainer without Demko here.

 

I did go back 5 or 6 pages of the forum to try to find a Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli thread to append this question.. no luck.

 

thanks in advance  ... and it's not a rhetorical question. I actually don't know/remember the answer.... 

Simple Answer 

 

Moving on from Marky wasn't a mistake, Demko is younger will most likely come in Cheaper on a 3-4 year deal,

 

Toffoli wasn't a mistake, if we take a glance at his goal total one might start out by saying wow 18 goals is 30 games, but if you dive into those goals it's 8 against (zero in the last 3 games against) Van well he wouldn't be playing against the Canucks and 3 more against Ott and Cal, that means 11 goals against the 3 weaker teams in the division and 7 goals against the 3 best teams in the division. The zero in the last 3 games against Van starts to paint the bigger picture he played with more passion in those first games maybe to prove to JB he made a mistake. In the long run probably next season not signing Toffoli will be the right decision.

 

Tanev is the hard one to me this is a coin toss one you could make an arguement for on both sides. Tanev help solved a lot of Hughes defensive issues. Had Hamonic come in and done the same thing this would have been a no brainer. The Fault against Tanev has always been injury issues. The Job JB has is to find a new defensive defenseman to play along side Hughes the sooner he does the sooner this becomes a mute point.

 

Who the Canucks got instead,

 

Holtby, I thought this was a mistake from the start and believe they compounded the mistake by giving him the first game of the season. Demko shouldn't have had to fight to be the starter he was the starter and JB and TG both failed to see it. A cheaper backup and the Salary JB gave to Hamonic could have kept Tanev. 

 

Schmidt, I would have done this trade in a heart beat and I believe most of the Canucks fan base would do this trade. he is a great replacement for Edler after Edler leaves this offseason.

 

Going forward, 

 

This is the only thing that matters.

 

untouchable's 

 

Demko, Pettersson, Hughes, Horvat, Boeser, Miller, Hoglander, Myers, Schmidt, Podkolzin and Juolevi.

 

Trade deadline must moves,

 

Pearson and Sutter, I believe if uninjured these guys have the most value. Edler if he will waive his NMC

 

Benn and Hamonic get what ever you can.

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

OK Kreskin. Have fun with that.

Kreskin was awesome.

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Simple Answer 

 

Moving on from Marky wasn't a mistake, Demko is younger will most likely come in Cheaper on a 3-4 year deal,

 

Toffoli wasn't a mistake, if we take a glance at his goal total one might start out by saying wow 18 goals is 30 games, but if you dive into those goals it's 8 against (zero in the last 3 games against) Van well he wouldn't be playing against the Canucks and 3 more against Ott and Cal, that means 11 goals against the 3 weaker teams in the division and 7 goals against the 3 best teams in the division. The zero in the last 3 games against Van starts to paint the bigger picture he played with more passion in those first games maybe to prove to JB he made a mistake. In the long run probably next season not signing Toffoli will be the right decision.

 

Tanev is the hard one to me this is a coin toss one you could make an arguement for on both sides. Tanev help solved a lot of Hughes defensive issues. Had Hamonic come in and done the same thing this would have been a no brainer. The Fault against Tanev has always been injury issues. The Job JB has is to find a new defensive defenseman to play along side Hughes the sooner he does the sooner this becomes a mute point.

 

Who the Canucks got instead,

 

Holtby, I thought this was a mistake from the start and believe they compounded the mistake by giving him the first game of the season. Demko shouldn't have had to fight to be the starter he was the starter and JB and TG both failed to see it. A cheaper backup and the Salary JB gave to Hamonic could have kept Tanev. 

 

Schmidt, I would have done this trade in a heart beat and I believe most of the Canucks fan base would do this trade. he is a great replacement for Edler after Edler leaves this offseason.

 

Going forward, 

 

This is the only thing that matters.

 

untouchable's 

 

Demko, Pettersson, Hughes, Horvat, Boeser, Miller, Hoglander, Myers, Schmidt, Podkolzin and Juolevi.

 

Trade deadline must moves,

 

Pearson and Sutter, I believe if uninjured these guys have the most value. Edler if he will waive his NMC

 

Benn and Hamonic get what ever you can.

Moving on from Markstrom was the right move. 

 

18 goals in 30 games is impressive no matter who they are scored against. Thats apro rated 50 goal season. Against only top teams like your scenario it would still be a 20 goal season, both better than we could expect from almost anyone being used to replace Toffoli. Letting Toffoli go was a mistake especially at a reasonable cap hit for a good two way player who by all accounts fit in very well.

 

Holtby was clearly a panic move and a big mistake.

 

Schmidt and Hamonic was at least a decent recovery from losing Tanev.

 

Edler and Hamonic will not waive I dont think. Sutter and Pearson should both be traded though if able to. Benn too. Juolevi will be fine imo.

[Toyotasfan]

The HNIC panel has often discussed keeping Miller at centre but the con is Vancouver doesn’t have enough quality wingers to fill out 3 quality lines. 

 It would have been a great scenario to keep Tofoli , it’s a glaring drop off after Boeser . 

[Arrow 1983]

29 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Moving on from Markstrom was the right move. 

 

18 goals in 30 games is impressive no matter who they are scored against. Thats apro rated 50 goal season. Against only top teams like your scenario it would still be a 20 goal season, both better than we could expect from almost anyone being used to replace Toffoli. Letting Toffoli go was a mistake especially at a reasonable cap hit for a good two way player who by all accounts fit in very well.

 

Holtby was clearly a panic move and a big mistake.

 

Schmidt and Hamonic was at least a decent recovery from losing Tanev.

 

Edler and Hamonic will not waive I dont think. Sutter and Pearson should both be traded though if able to. Benn too. Juolevi will be fine imo.

Very few players in this league get 50 goals Toffoli isn't one of them and I don't know any one who would want to pay 4+ million to a 20 goal one dimensional player.

[wallstreetamigo]

8 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Very few players in this league get 50 goals Toffoli isn't one of them and I don't know any one who would want to pay 4+ million to a 20 goal one dimensional player.

Have you ever actually seen him play? He is a puck hound along the walls, has a good shot, is willing to go to the tough areas to tip pucks and score on rebounds and is also a very solid defensive forward.

 

One dimensional is not anywhere close to describing him. And he has almost 20 goals in 30 games. So sure instead of admitting Benning $&!# the bed lets try to completely revise his actual skill level and ability to fit the pro Benning narrative. Sure bud.

 

Benning thought Eriksson was worth 6x6. But Toffoli isnt worth 4 mil after what he gave up to trade for him? Ya keep telling yourself that.

[Arrow 1983]

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Have you ever actually seen him play? He is a puck hound along the walls, has a good shot, is willing to go to the tough areas to tip pucks and score on rebounds and is also a very solid defensive forward.

 

One dimensional is not anywhere close to describing him. And he has almost 20 goals in 30 games. So sure instead of admitting Benning $&!# the bed lets try to completely revise his actual skill level and ability to fit the pro Benning narrative. Sure bud.

 

Benning thought Eriksson was worth 6x6. But Toffoli isnt worth 4 mil after what he gave up to trade for him? Ya keep telling yourself that.

He doesn't kill penalties and he was only on the Canucks 1st unit powerplay because JB acquired him when Boeser was injured. 

 

The trade wasn't bad because the Canucks were making a push for the playoffs. He is only slightly better than Virtanen IMO and Virtanen isn't all that good 3-3.5 mill is a fair contract for Toffoli other wise thank goodness he isn't here. Plus Podkolzin will be far better

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Kreskin was awesome.

Carnac was better

Edited March 29, 2021 by gurn

[wallstreetamigo]

20 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

He doesn't kill penalties and he was only on the Canucks 1st unit powerplay because JB acquired him when Boeser was injured. 

 

The trade wasn't bad because the Canucks were making a push for the playoffs. He is only slightly better than Virtanen IMO and Virtanen isn't all that good 3-3.5 mill is a fair contract for Toffoli other wise thank goodness he isn't here. Plus Podkolzin will be far better

Because killing penalties is the main criteria we should use to determine a top 6 goal scoring forwards value? Ya, ok bud.

 

Toffoli is miles better than Virtanen and its not even debatable. I honestly dont even know how you could say that with astraight face.

 

Lets just admit Benning $&!# the bed ok.

 

Toffoli is worth 3 to 3.5 mil in todays dollars but Beagle, Roussel, Eriksson, Sutter, and Myers were all worth at least that or much more?

 

Please come back to reality.

Edited March 29, 2021 by wallstreetamigo