[Signing] Jets re-sign Adam Lowry

[spook007]

11 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. 

Hilarious.... its not Canucks management job to sign players for other teams... 

 

...make the Canucks management look really bad..... hahahaha 

[spook007]

11 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. 

Benning gave the team a chance to taste play offs. Did you consider that it also had to do with wanting to see where the team was at?

I’m delighted we don’t go the Oilers way and destroy all of our future stars, before they get the chance to be stars...

[spook007]

1 hour 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.

 

Exactly... nobody holds a gun to their head and tells them they have to offer, what the neighbour paid. Its up to every single GM to deside what they are prepared to pay for the services of each player available 

[Dazzle]

25 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

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. 

That's totally false. Did you look at the state of the team after Gillis? Are you telling me that an injured Hunter Shinkaruk (probably our best prospect outside of Horvat) would've fetched ANYTHING? Kassian is Kassian. Kesler was worth next to nothing thanks to his list. Benning tried to extract as much value as possible from Anaheim, though both teams ended up losing the trade. Bonino was an okay player, but the Canucks were not really in a position to use his services. Not really a player that you build around as a rebuilding team.

 

We had players like Vey and Chaput as well. I think Gillis left Benning in a near impossible situation for a GM to succeed.

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, spook007 said:

Benning gave the team a chance to taste play offs. Did you consider that it also had to do with wanting to see where the team was at?

I’m delighted we don’t go the Oilers way and destroy all of our future stars, before they get the chance to be stars...

Thats the problem. Benning doesn't even seem to know from day to day, week to week, or year to year where the team is actually at or what he needs to do. Alternating between rebuilding through the draft and trying to sign quick fixes to squeak into the playoffs just doesn't work. It crestes a cap maxed bottom feeder like the Canucks are and have been pretty much all of Bennings tenure.

 

The Canucks regularly rely on goaltending to mask serious roster weaknesses and sugar coat terrible cap waste by Benning. They were not REALLY a competitive playoff team last year, and pretty much everyone knew that. Too many holes on the roster and too much wasted cap space.

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Thats the problem. Benning doesn't even seem to know from day to day, week to week, or year to year where the team is actually at or what he needs to do. Alternating between rebuilding through the draft and trying to sign quick fixes to squeak into the playoffs just doesn't work. It crestes a cap maxed bottom feeder like the Canucks are and have been pretty much all of Bennings tenure.

 

The Canucks regularly rely on goaltending to mask serious roster weaknesses and sugar coat terrible cap waste by Benning. They were not REALLY a competitive playoff team last year, and pretty much everyone knew that. Too many holes on the roster and too much wasted cap space.

I'm not sure that is entirely fair. We beat Minnesota (making us truly eligible to enter the playoffs). We defeated St. Louis, a team that was previously the Stanley Cup champs the year before. And we forced Game 7 against LV.

 

Canucks made a huge step forward, but I don't think you could fairly say it was a 'lucky' run.

[wallstreetamigo]

6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

That's totally false. Did you look at the state of the team after Gillis? Are you telling me that an injured Hunter Shinkaruk (probably our best prospect outside of Horvat) would've fetched ANYTHING? Kassian is Kassian. Kesler was worth next to nothing thanks to his list. Benning tried to extract as much value as possible from Anaheim, though both teams ended up losing the trade. Bonino was an okay player, but the Canucks were not really in a position to use his services. Not really a player that you build around as a rebuilding team.

 

We had players like Vey and Chaput as well. I think Gillis left Benning in a near impossible situation for a GM to succeed.

 

 

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

 

Its also curious to me why Gillis signing players to ntc is a handcuff but Benning signing them is no big deal?

 

And why are you blaming Gillis for a trade Benning made to acquire Linden Vey?

[kloubek]

21 hours ago, 250Integra said:

Tanner Pearson would be a 3rd line winger on most teams, and he's slightly overpaid for a guy that is trending the wrong direction.

This season's Tanner Pearson, sure... 3rd line guy. Last year, he had the best gpg of his career, by a long shot. Not sure if you can claim a "trend" set by only a couple dozen games.

 

With this said, I don't feel Pearson is an ideal 2nd line winger. I think his first full season with us was as much an anomaly as his poor performance this season.  Imo, and historically, Pearson is about a .5ppg player, which puts him at an elite 3rd line level but not really a 2nd liner. So your I think your *overall* assessment is pretty dead on.

[Dazzle]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

 

Its also curious to me why Gillis signing players to ntc is a handcuff but Benning signing them is no big deal?

 

And why are you blaming Gillis for a trade Benning made to acquire Linden Vey?

I misspoke on the Vey part.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

I'm not sure that is entirely fair. We beat Minnesota (making us truly eligible to enter the playoffs). We defeated St. Louis, a team that was previously the Stanley Cup champs the year before. And we forced Game 7 against LV.

 

Canucks made a huge step forward, but I don't think you could fairly say it was a 'lucky' run.

Game 7 against Vegas only happened because of 3 games of god like goaltending by Demko. They were lucky to have gotten there the way they played. 

 

Minnesota is not exactly a great team either.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

I misspoke on the Vey part.

I get your point and don't entirely disagree tbh. Gillis left a real mess. But I do think Benning has repeated a lot of the mistakes especially with all the ntc he gives out. The difference is Gillis actually had a top team, made the cup finals, and was at the top of the league. So its a bit more understandable that he "went for it" a few times. It didn't work of course. But Benning keeps going for it with a bottom of the league team. My opinion is that is much harder to defend.

[wallstreetamigo]

If Benning could handle drafting, Gillis could handle organizational efficiency, Gilman could handle cap management, and anyone with half a brain could handle pro scouting, the Canucks would be in good shape lol.

[stawns]

51 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

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. 

How do you tear it down when you can't trade anyone with any real value?

[spook007]

22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Thats the problem. Benning doesn't even seem to know from day to day, week to week, or year to year where the team is actually at or what he needs to do. Alternating between rebuilding through the draft and trying to sign quick fixes to squeak into the playoffs just doesn't work. It crestes a cap maxed bottom feeder like the Canucks are and have been pretty much all of Bennings tenure.

 

The Canucks regularly rely on goaltending to mask serious roster weaknesses and sugar coat terrible cap waste by Benning. They were not REALLY a competitive playoff team last year, and pretty much everyone knew that. Too many holes on the roster and too much wasted cap space.

Huge difference between play offs and normal season, so important to test the youngsters under the more trying conditions. Furthermore, I think giving the youngsters a taste of playoffs, motivates them for the future. Regarding wasted cap space, I don’t think anyone thought players like EP would enter the league and dominate like he did from the word go. If he hadn’t, it probably wouldn’t even have mattered with the contracts handed out to bottom 6 players. And please don’t use Eriksson as an example. Even the folks who were against the deal, can’t believe how bad he’s been. 

[wallstreetamigo]

8 minutes ago, stawns said:

How do you tear it down when you can't trade anyone with any real value?

There were lots of opportunities to trade players of value though. Benning specifically chose not to do what needed to be done.

 

You make an interesting point. Under Gillis, apparently all the ntc were an anchor to action by Benning. But somehow the same people currently defend Benning giving out ntc, term, dollars to support players which we already saw cost us a top line winger last offseason. The result of those contracts being what? Oh ya, those guys are now untradeable.

Edited April 17, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[iinatcc]

52 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

That's totally false. Did you look at the state of the team after Gillis? Are you telling me that an injured Hunter Shinkaruk (probably our best prospect outside of Horvat) would've fetched ANYTHING? Kassian is Kassian. Kesler was worth next to nothing thanks to his list. Benning tried to extract as much value as possible from Anaheim, though both teams ended up losing the trade. Bonino was an okay player, but the Canucks were not really in a position to use his services. Not really a player that you build around as a rebuilding team.

 

We had players like Vey and Chaput as well. I think Gillis left Benning in a near impossible situation for a GM to succeed.

 

 

Well regarding the Kesler trade. Bonino was a good player and was actually quite good for Vancouver especially in the shootouts.

 

Benning also got a 1st round pick for Kesler which ended up being Jared McCann who Benning gave up too soon and is now a 0.7 PPG player. Benning could have also drafted David Pastrnak with the pick. Which is strange considering Benning was in the Bruins organization a few months prior. You would think he would have the same scouting info Bruins had on him .

 

[Dazzle]

55 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Well regarding the Kesler trade. Bonino was a good player and was actually quite good for Vancouver especially in the shootouts.

 

Benning also got a 1st round pick for Kesler which ended up being Jared McCann who Benning gave up too soon and is now a 0.7 PPG player. Benning could have also drafted David Pastrnak with the pick. Which is strange considering Benning was in the Bruins organization a few months prior. You would think he would have the same scouting info Bruins had on him .

 

Bonino was a decent consolation prize, but he wasn't exactly the entire answer because we lacked a lot of depth. I think the whole Pastrnak thing is overstated though. Even if Benning did have the info, there would most likely be a conflict of interest in such a scenario, not to mention the fact that many teams passed on Pastrnak.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

16 hours ago, Stormriders said:

To me, the simple equation is:  based on the two contracts, just signed, given the choice of the two, which player and contract would you pick.  To me, hands down Lowry.  He makes that Winnipeg 3rd line one of if not the best 3rd line in hockey [put Copp back on the line, as he has been moved because of injury].  Pearson, who I like but don't think is a true 2nd line player of a cup team, can be replaced much more easily than Lowry.  If Winnipeg hadn't resigned him, who would you try and sign in the off season for your 3rd line centre before him ??        Come cup run, Lowry will be a beast !

alex wennberg. he can play up and down the lineup 

[stawns]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Game 7 against Vegas only happened because of 3 games of god like goaltending by Demko. They were lucky to have gotten there the way they played. 

 

Minnesota is not exactly a great team either.

Last time I checked Demko was a member of the team

[stawns]

3 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

There were lots of opportunities to trade players of value though. Benning specifically chose not to do what needed to be done.

 

You make an interesting point. Under Gillis, apparently all the ntc were an anchor to action by Benning. But somehow the same people currently defend Benning giving out ntc, term, dollars to support players which we already saw cost us a top line winger last offseason. The result of those contracts being what? Oh ya, those guys are now untradeable.

There was?  Any player with any real value had a no movement clause, tight no trade clause or deep no trade list.