[Trade] Canucks trade Adam Gaudette to Blackhawks for Matthew Highmore

[Westcoastcanucks777]

20 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Good example!

 

Calgary turned Neal into Lucic who despite his salary at least is a serviceable player for them.

 

Loui Eriksson says hi from the arena bar and grill.

He can afford to watch the game there everyday 

[canuck73_3]

27 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Stecher has arguably been their best overall dman this year. And he has seemingly suddenly been able to put it all together and played above what the Canucks thought he was. Its almost like the Canucks have no clue how to know what they actually have.

 

Calgary has their problems but like the Canucks they need a new GM.

Stecher being your best dman is not a good thing. 

[Azzy]

29 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Stecher has arguably been their best overall dman this year. And he has seemingly suddenly been able to put it all together and played above what the Canucks thought he was. Its almost like the Canucks have no clue how to know what they actually have.

 

Calgary has their problems but like the Canucks they need a new GM.

Stech was healthy scratched twice and Hronek was leagues above, but there really was no-one else close to his level of performance (Merrill  showed flashes from time to time). I'm not convinced Stech would have been better than Hamonic, but he'd have been healthier and more consistent for sure.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

Stecher being your best dman is not a good thing. 

Thats not really the point. He has been far more than what Vancouver considered him to be. With their excellent pro scouting of even their own players.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, Azzy said:

Stech was healthy scratched twice and Hronek was leagues above, but there really was no-one else close to his level of performance (Merrill  showed flashes from time to time). I'm not convinced Stech would have been better than Hamonic, but he'd have been healthier and more consistent for sure.

Stecher didnt have to be better than Hamonic. Longer term would having him on the 3rd pairing been a bad thing though?

 

Probably better than having Edler on the top pairing at much less money so the top pairing could be upgraded.

[BigTramFan]

6 hours ago, iinatcc said:

The thing is this is a problem Jim Benning actually has and he hasn't been able to solve this problem as well. Yet he is the one that signed those contracts and as a GM if you offer those contracts you need to anticipate the possibility of having to get rid of them in the future. 

 

Toronto did with Marleau and sure it costs them a 1st but it was still worth it to keep their core. 

The problem will be solved when these contracts magically end either this season or next season. I can't see where these contracts have affected keeping our core.

[wallstreetamigo]

11 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

The problem will be solved when these contracts magically end either this season or next season. I can't see where these contracts have affected keeping our core.

You are basing this on the assumption Benning wont eat up that cap with more crappy signings. Far from a sure thing imo.

[c00kies]

12 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

The problem will be solved when these contracts magically end either this season or next season. I can't see where these contracts have affected keeping our core.

It did cost us a top 6-winger in Tofu. Not necessarily a core piece, but it is something we need to replace again and it isn't easy to do so. 

 

The to do list for Vancouver: Get 2 legit top d-pairings, get another top 6 scoring winger, load up with forward depth that is capable of forechecking, creating pressure, and providing depth scoring, and get a new coach/scheme. 

 

These are things that take a few years (and/or a lot of luck) to accumulate. I'm curious to see what we are able to address this off-season.

[Duodenum]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Stecher has arguably been their best overall dman this year. And he has seemingly suddenly been able to put it all together and played above what the Canucks thought he was. Its almost like the Canucks have no clue how to know what they actually have.

 

Calgary has their problems but like the Canucks they need a new GM.

Stecher was great in Vancouver so obviously the pro GM move is to get rid of the cheap, good defenseman. 

 

Guys like Yzerman know good talent.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Duodenum

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, Duodenum said:

Stecher was great in Vancouver

Great defenseman don't slot in at number 5,6 or 7 on a team, like Stecher did here and will elsewhere in his career.

[Duodenum]

32 minutes ago, gurn said:

Great defenseman don't slot in at number 5,6 or 7 on a team, like Stecher did here and will elsewhere in his career.

Ok, let's go with "Excellent bottom pairing defenseman" then. If that is too much, then "Above average/Solid bottom pairing defenseman".

 

I can also go with "bottom pairing defenseman with sparkling defensive numbers who can slide into the top 4 when needed". 

[Westcoastcanucks777]

59 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

Ok, let's go with "Excellent bottom pairing defenseman" then. If that is too much, then "Above average/Solid bottom pairing defenseman".

 

I can also go with "bottom pairing defenseman with sparkling defensive numbers who can slide into the top 4 when needed". 

But can you take one for the team?

[BigTramFan]

3 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

You are basing this on the assumption Benning wont eat up that cap with more crappy signings. Far from a sure thing imo.

No, I made zero assumptions, if you read what I said: "The problem will be solved when these contracts magically end either this season or next season. I can't see where these contracts have affected keeping our core."

 

I see you did not take up the challenge of telling us how you would have "easily got rid of" Eriksson, Baertschi, Edler, Beagle and Roussel.

[BigTramFan]

3 hours ago, c00kies said:

It did cost us a top 6-winger in Tofu. Not necessarily a core piece, but it is something we need to replace again and it isn't easy to do so. 

 

The to do list for Vancouver: Get 2 legit top d-pairings, get another top 6 scoring winger, load up with forward depth that is capable of forechecking, creating pressure, and providing depth scoring, and get a new coach/scheme. 

 

These are things that take a few years (and/or a lot of luck) to accumulate. I'm curious to see what we are able to address this off-season.

I disagree. Benning had the cap space last off season to resign both Toffoli and Tanev (total of $9m), see my post with capfriendly insert on previous page of this thread. He was not constrained by cap space to resign Tofu. Instead he chose to resign Virtanen ($2.55m) and then ended up spending the remaining cap space on Schimdt ($5.95m). Essentially he decided to go with Virtanen + Schmidt instead of Toffoli + Tanev.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, BigTramFan said:

No, I made zero assumptions, if you read what I said: "The problem will be solved when these contracts magically end either this season or next season. I can't see where these contracts have affected keeping our core."

 

I see you did not take up the challenge of telling us how you would have "easily got rid of" Eriksson, Baertschi, Edler, Beagle and Roussel.

Bad contracts are traded all the time. Sometimes you have to add an asset to get another team to take them, especially when they are paid too much for too long.

 

Would it have cost Benning a prospect or pick to move out some salary? Probably. But thats the price of signing a whole bunch of terrible contracts. 

[BigTramFan]

9 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Bad contracts are traded all the time. Sometimes you have to add an asset to get another team to take them, especially when they are paid too much for too long.

 

Would it have cost Benning a prospect or pick to move out some salary? Probably. But thats the price of signing a whole bunch of terrible contracts. 

Yes I am well aware of that. It is the cost of doing so and that you think would be "easy" that I have issue with.

 

Firstly I do not think there were enough teams with the cap space and willingness to take on salary during the 2020 off season to clear all of those contracts at that time.

 

Secondly, Edler has a full NMC and reportedly is not interested in waiving it, so you aren't going to move his $6m.

 

Here is what I think it would have cost us to clear the other contracts without taking salary back:

Eriksson traded along with a 1st pick + 3rd pick + A prospect such as Rathbone

Baertschi traded along with a 2nd pick

Roussel traded along with 2nd pick

Beagle traded along with 2nd pick

 

So if you think Benning should have done that, then good on you. I am much happier with the approach of waiting out those contracts than spending futures.

[wallstreetamigo]

11 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

Yes I am well aware of that. It is the cost of doing so and that you think would be "easy" that I have issue with.

 

Firstly I do not think there were enough teams with the cap space and willingness to take on salary during the 2020 off season to clear all of those contracts at that time.

 

Secondly, Edler has a full NMC and reportedly is not interested in waiving it, so you aren't going to move his $6m.

 

Here is what I think it would have cost us to clear the other contracts without taking salary back:

Eriksson traded along with a 1st pick + 3rd pick + A prospect such as Rathbone

Baertschi traded along with a 2nd pick

Roussel traded along with 2nd pick

Beagle traded along with 2nd pick

 

So if you think Benning should have done that, then good on you. I am much happier with the approach of waiting out those contracts than spending futures.

Waiting for them to clear off has already wasted a few years where the team could have been improving though. And it assumes Benning wont just burn up that cap space with more $&!#ty contracts. Hardly a sure thing with his track record.

 

It probably would not have taken a 2nd to get rid of Roussel, Beagle, or Baertschi. And it would not take a 1st, 3rd, and Rathbone to get rid of Eriksson. They would probably have to retain some cap though.

 

Literally no one should be happy he signed them in the first place then try to claim he is a great manager for not getting rid of them.

 

Look at the list of bust tweeners he has traded 2nd and 3rd round pucks and good prospects for. He traded a 2nd and a good prospect for a rental he then let walk last year.

 

There would be no better reason to trade a pick then to get cap space. Because its not just about what he gets rid of, its also what (if he wasnt a terrible pro evaluator) that cap space could allow him to replace that player with.

[wallstreetamigo]

The one thing I will say probably hindered him more than anything to move guys is giving them ntc. Even limited ntc in this environment make the job much tougher.

 

Lets just get a new GM who doesnt waste all our upcoming cap space on those kind of contracts.

[Nave]

This was such a bad trade. Gaudette had offensive potential, but we never played him with skilled players. Now, he has 4 points in 5 games with Chicago, and is getting a look in the top 6. Instead of thinking, "Oh we can just replace him with Lind," we should have been thinking, "How would he play with Lind?"

The fact we didn't even get a pick back is just unbelievable. 

[BigTramFan]

28 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Waiting for them to clear off has already wasted a few years where the team could have been improving though. And it assumes Benning wont just burn up that cap space with more $&!#ty contracts. Hardly a sure thing with his track record.

 

It probably would not have taken a 2nd to get rid of Roussel, Beagle, or Baertschi. And it would not take a 1st, 3rd, and Rathbone to get rid of Eriksson. They would probably have to retain some cap though.

 

Literally no one should be happy he signed them in the first place then try to claim he is a great manager for not getting rid of them.

 

Look at the list of bust tweeners he has traded 2nd and 3rd round pucks and good prospects for. He traded a 2nd and a good prospect for a rental he then let walk last year.

 

There would be no better reason to trade a pick then to get cap space. Because its not just about what he gets rid of, its also what (if he wasnt a terrible pro evaluator) that cap space could allow him to replace that player with.

It 100% would've cost you that level of sweeteners to move serious cap during covid times.

 

I have never claimed JB is a great GM, nor did I say that he should have signed those players to those contracts, just that moving them last off season was not easy and would have been cost prohibitive. I also think that trading futures for those contracts would have done more damage to our future and team development than letting them lapse.

 

Our core (namely EP, QH, TD ages 22, 21, 25) is not yet ready to contend. Look at our 2011 Stanley Cup Final team with Sedins (age 30), Burrows (30), Kesler (26), Bieksa (29), Luongo (32).  Realistically it is going to take a couple more years of development for the Canucks to be serious contenders. The players on bad contracts that you mention will be well gone by then.

 

It is then that we need a supporting cast of role players that are not overpaid and can contribute. JB is not the GM to do that, nor should he still be here then.