[Signing] Jets re-sign Adam Lowry

[coryberg]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

my preference would have been for Jim to wait as see if Lowry became available.

And how do you think that would have turned out?

[JM_]

1 minute ago, coryberg said:

And how do you think that would have turned out?

fine. 

[Gurn]

9 hours ago, iinatcc said:

 

So it's still Benning's fault for setting the market too high 

 

Personally I blame all the other G.Ms. 

They must be following CDC and know that multiple posters have identifiedJ.B. as being an idiot.

Since all those posters can not be wrong, being so smart, observant and having such a long history of playing,coaching, scouting and being a g.m; the only logical conclusion is to sign people on your own team before J.B inflates the market.

 

Man those other g.m.s sure are stupid.

[wallstreetamigo]

59 minutes ago, stawns said:

So when bad things happen it's the Canucks/JB's fault, but when good things happen it's because the other team sucks.

 

Holy gaslighting batman

I didn't say that at all. There are always two teams on the ice so the results always come down to a combination of how both play. The Canucks did not really dominate the Blues but they played better than them though. Vegas actually dominated the Canucks for most of that series and the Canucks didn't play particularly well other than Demko playing lights out.

[Dazzle]

10 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Apparently, according to the folks in the media, the Pearson signing set the precedence of the term and salary Top 9 forwards like Lowry and Laughton are getting. Also from these reports some GM's were not happy at the Pearson signing as well since they were expecting these type of players to sign on less term and money.  

 

So yes while the Perason deal looks better now, one might argue that these other deals we've seen these past few days to middle/top 9 forwards would have looked different if it wasn't for Pearson's contract.

 

So it's still Benning's fault for setting the market too high 

 

Actually I never thought the Pearson deal was bad, it was actually ok. But the optics of the signing makes the Canucks Management look really bad. 

Uhh no, that's not really how negotiations work.

 

If someone overpays a house on the real estate market by a gross amount, the other houses on the market don't actually get affected, especially if there's a supply of comparable houses available.

 

People just assume that money gets tossed around without doing the comparables analysis. While agents do look at completed signings as precedents, other teams also have to agree to this 'overpaynent' because each player means something different to each team. 

 

Let's take the fans' assumption that Benning has a reputation for being a moron at managing cap space, so why then do the signings 'follow' Pearson's signing? The agents and GMs will roughly gauge each player's worth on the market. That's their job.

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Dazzle

[JM_]

54 minutes ago, gurn said:

Personally I blame all the other G.Ms. 

They must be following CDC and know that multiple posters have identifiedJ.B. as being an idiot.

Since all those posters can not be wrong, being so smart, observant and having such a long history of playing,coaching, scouting and being a g.m; the only logical conclusion is to sign people on your own team before J.B inflates the market.

 

Man those other g.m.s sure are stupid.

Dim GiM's. 

[Dazzle]

10 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I disagree. If the team was not going to be competitive for those years, then why the need to sign expensive veteran players in the first place? The stated goal by Benning with every one of those signings was to make the team competitive and to get to the playoffs.

 

Clearly it didn't accomplish that. Changing the reasoning now just to make excuses for Benning is disingenuous at best. 

 

Toffoli, a guy who fit in very well and produced points, at 4.25 for the same term as Pearson's extension would be a problem by the end but none of those other signings are a problem?

 

Come on man.

 

I have news for you. We are much further away ftom contending than we were last year when Toffoli, Tanev, Stecher, Markstrom, etc. were here. Losing them because of those other contracts cant be seen as a step forward. Even Benning is saying a minimum of two years to be competitive. I remember him trading for Toffoli last trade deadline. It seems he thought the team was closer than 2 years minimum. So he is, in effect, admitting himself the team has taken a significant step back. That is directly linked to all the dead money and overpayments on the roster.

 

Thats the point. If Benning keeps signing these contracts its going to squeeze out a core player sooner or later. 

If you're going to go back to the beginning of Benning's tenure, you'll also have to go back to the fact that Gillis left this team in shambles. I'm not saying Benning did the right thing or not, but i think Benning was going to make mistakes one way or another. Gillis really screwed this team so badly because he left us with NO prospects, just a bunch of players who either had low value, or they had NTCs. This led to players not wanting to sign here, especially the good ones. We could've easily been another Buffalo.

 

We've also seen that rebuilds rarely happen smoothly.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Dazzle

[mll]

8 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Uhh no, that's not really how negotiations work.

 

If someone overpays a house on the real estate market by a gross amount, the other houses on the market don't actually get affected, especially if there's a supply of comparable houses available.

 

People just assume that money gets tossed around without doing the comparables analysis. While agents do look at completed signings as precedents, other teams also have to agree to this 'overpaynent' because each player means something different to each team. 

 

Let's take the fans' assumption that Benning has a reputation for being a moron at managing cap space, so why then do the signings 'follow' Pearson's signing? The agents and GMs will roughly gauge each player's worth on the market. That's their job.

 

 

It did according to Friedman.  From his 31 thoughts:

 

11. Tanner Pearson happily secured his future, saying Monday, “This is what I wanted from the get-go, I made that clear.” His three-year, $3.25-million deal with the Canucks certainly affected the market. Los Angeles and Philadelphia completed important business with Alex Iafallo and Scott Laughton, respectively, and things altered in both negotiations in the aftermath of Pearson’s contract. The Kings conceded on term (they initially didn’t want to go four years), and the Flyers on salary (they were below $3 million per year).

 

Four- and five-year deals aren’t going to be thrown around, so what we learned is how strongly those organizations felt about those players. Los Angeles indicated it wouldn’t trade Iafallo even if a contract wasn’t done. The Flyers did test the market on Laughton, but ultimately chose to keen him.

 

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

agree fully. This is why my preference would have been for Jim to wait as see if Lowry became available. 

 

There are some interesting names on the UFA C list, but my guess is we see a few of them get locked up as well. 

That's ridiculous. If Lowry didn't want to stay in Winnipeg, he would've left, no? You can't wait for a player that shows no intention of leaving. Lowry intended to stay.

[JM_]

Just now, Dazzle said:

That's ridiculous. If Lowry didn't want to stay in Winnipeg, he would've left, no? You can't wait for a player that shows no intention of leaving. Lowry intended to stay.

we know that now. We were talking about the timing of resigning Pearson. I would have like Jim to wait and see what shook out with Lowry. How is that ridiculous? no one knew what his intentions were until this week. 

[Dazzle]

7 minutes ago, mll said:

 

It did according to Friedman.  From his 31 thoughts:

 

11. Tanner Pearson happily secured his future, saying Monday, “This is what I wanted from the get-go, I made that clear.” His three-year, $3.25-million deal with the Canucks certainly affected the market. Los Angeles and Philadelphia completed important business with Alex Iafallo and Scott Laughton, respectively, and things altered in both negotiations in the aftermath of Pearson’s contract. The Kings conceded on term (they initially didn’t want to go four years), and the Flyers on salary (they were below $3 million per year).

 

Four- and five-year deals aren’t going to be thrown around, so what we learned is how strongly those organizations felt about those players. Los Angeles indicated it wouldn’t trade Iafallo even if a contract wasn’t done. The Flyers did test the market on Laughton, but ultimately chose to keen him.

 

Would a player really admit that he settled for a lower price? Negotiations are very fluid. A completed transaction happens typically when there is a compromise.

 

Pearson's statement is nothing more than him saying he is happy to stay in Vancouver.  No one will ever say they took less money because that would affect his future.

 

The Pearson deal is a no brainer really.

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we know that now. We were talking about the timing of resigning Pearson. I would have like Jim to wait and see what shook out with Lowry. How is that ridiculous? no one knew what his intentions were until this week. 

Exactly, but that's the thing; your suggestion that Benning would 'wait' for a pending UFA from another team assumes that people will always want to go to Vancouver. And that clearly wasn't the case for Lowry (in hindsight). A lot of times players have settled in that place and don't want to leave.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Dazzle

[JM_]

Just now, Dazzle said:

Exactl, but that's the thing; your suggestion that Benning would 'wait' for a pending UFA from another team assumes that people will always want to go to Vancouver. And that clearly wasn't the case for Lowry (in hindsight). A lot of times players have settled in that place and don't want to leave.

it was worth the risk. Pearson is fine, but we need a 3C replacement more. There will be a lot of wingers of his calibre available as free agents, but Lowry fit the need for size and skill on the 3rd line. 

 

I'm not ant-Pearson as much as I'm pro filling in 3C with someone other than Boyd or an injured Sutter. 

[Dazzle]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

it was worth the risk. Pearson is fine, but we need a 3C replacement more. There will be a lot of wingers of his calibre available as free agents, but Lowry fit the need for size and skill on the 3rd line. 

 

I'm not ant-Pearson as much as I'm pro filling in 3C with someone other than Boyd or an injured Sutter. 

If you were to ask people around here, 3c players can be had for cheap.

[mll]

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Will a player really admit that he settled for a lower price? Negotiations are very fluid. A completed transaction happens typically when there is a compromise.

 

Pearson's statement is nothing more than him saying he is happy to stay in Vancouver.  No one will ever say they took less money because that would affect his future.

 

 

His deal influenced the deals for Iafallo and Laughton where they were able to negotiate better conditions.

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by mll

[Dazzle]

Just now, mll said:

His deal influenced the deals for Iafallo and Laughton where they were able zo negotiate better conditions.

According to Elliott Friedman, who I do respect a lot. But if you actually think about it, what he's saying isn't something that should be taken at full value.

 

In an analysis like his, you can easily take the first signing that happened and retroactively apply it to all the other signings. 

 

You know what's funny? If the Canucks waited too long, they'll lose another player. If they settled for a deal 'too soon', fans are here to question whether the deal was a good one or not. Seems like people have no idea how negotiations work at all. If it was so easy to do them, we wouldn't have a turnover of GMs throughout the league.

 

 

[JM_]

9 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

If you were to ask people around here, 3c players can be had for cheap.

only if you're in WPG apparently. 

[wallstreetamigo]

42 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

If you're going to go back to the beginning of Benning's tenure, you'll also have to go back to the fact that Gillis left this team in shambles. I'm not saying Benning did the right thing or not, but i think Benning was going to make mistakes one way or another. Gillis really screwed this team so badly because he left us with NO prospects, just a bunch of players who either had low value, or they had NTCs. This led to players not wanting to sign here, especially the good ones. We could've easily been another Buffalo.

 

We've also seen that rebuilds rarely happen smoothly.

Gillis definitely left the team in a bad state. Made worse by the Canucks not immediately tearing it down and rebuilding right off the start of Bennings tenure.

 

There were a lot of opportunities for Benning to recoup some value, acquire more picks, and make a rebuild go more smoothly. Unfortunately they didn't actually commit to the rebuild. They alternated between the rebuild and trying to prop up a weak team to playoff hopeful with some bad signings and trades for tweeners.

 

Reakistically the team probably should have been dismantled after their will was broken by the Bruins and the next two playoffs by LA and San Jose. 

[‹(•¿•)›]

Maybe, just maybe NHL GMs have information that average fans don't. Is it possible that Benning would have reached out to Lowry's agent to get a feel for whether or not he would be interested in playing in Van, what sort of numbers and term he was looking for, etc. I know that is technically tampering,  but c'mon we all know it happens. Looking at the list of potential UFA 3Cs, there isn't much there, now that Lowry's off the market. Benning may have already been resigned to a short term, low cost 1 year 3C placeholder prior to the Pearson signing.

[JeremyCuddles]

Not even gonna touch on the idiocy that is comparing a 3rd line C to a 2nd line LWer having a down year. But yes, this is a very good deal for Winnipeg. Lowry is the perfect 3rd line center in my books. Can do it all.