[Signing] Canucks re-sign Brandon Sutter

[wallstreetamigo]

31 minutes ago, Me_ said:

If you’re on a team for five years… you’re kind of “foundational”…

 

Our kids are ready two to three years early and counting.

 

Goad Sutter knows his place in this organization.

 

Benning called him foundational 5 minutes after trading for him. Or 5 minutes after re-signing him to a terrible deal. I cant remember which. Either way it was a term used to justify getting absolutely fleeced in the trade.

[Bruce Boudreau]

20 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

If you've never seen him play how do you know he is a 5/6 depth guy but playing him in the top 4 would be a huge mistake? 

The fact he was never mentioned as a free agent target anywhere on the internet. Or how there were no reports or experts saying how great a signing this was in most media means it is pretty much out of left field.

On 7/31/2021 at 2:44 PM, Millerdraft said:

Congratulations!  You managed to gripe about something that should be impossible to lob a complaint against.

Well I have not wanted him on the team longer than Beagle or Roussel. In fact I never wanted him on the team at all going back to the Bonino trade. He has always been overrated living off the last name.

[zimmy]

44 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Benning called him foundational 5 minutes after trading for him. Or 5 minutes after re-signing him to a terrible deal. I cant remember which. Either way it was a term used to justify getting absolutely fleeced in the trade.

I suspect I’m going to regret this observation but are you seriously suggesting that JB knew he had been fleeced in the deal and that “five” minutes later he was covering up for the mistake by using the term “foundational”? 

 

My sense is that this isn’t tongue in cheek (despite what you might protest) and that this is just another cheap dig on your part. And don’t spend the energy breaking down the deal and subsequent contract to Sutter …. we get it, it wasn’t good, not a highlight on JB’s resume, etc, etc.
 

You are making some serious aspersions here.
 

Playground stuff.

[wallstreetamigo]

13 minutes ago, zimmy said:

I suspect I’m going to regret this observation but are you seriously suggesting that JB knew he had been fleeced in the deal and that “five” minutes later he was covering up for the mistake by using the term “foundational”? 

 

My sense is that this isn’t tongue in cheek (despite what you might protest) and that this is just another cheap dig on your part. And don’t spend the energy breaking down the deal and subsequent contract to Sutter …. we get it, it wasn’t good, not a highlight on JB’s resume, etc, etc.
 

You are making some serious aspersions here.
 

Playground stuff.

No I think Benning genuinely thought all the things he said about Sutter were true. He just happened to be absolutely delusional if you look at what he actually thought at the time.

 

His "foundational" comment and rushed re-signing were to justify what everyone but Jim seemed to recognize was an absolute fleecing. He oversold Sutter as a result and that did Sutter no favors in terms of fans feelings about him.

 

Look back at what Benning said. No chance Sutter was ever living up to that billing and had not done so even up until that moment.

 

Benning has had some pretty spotty overestimation of guys he has paid through the nose for. Sutter and Gudbranson its almost laughable to look at the bill of goods he got sold on them.

[AV.]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

No I think Benning genuinely thought all the things he said about Sutter were true. He just happened to be absolutely delusional if you look at what he actually thought at the time.

 

His "foundational" comment and rushed re-signing were to justify what everyone but Jim seemed to recognize was an absolute fleecing. He oversold Sutter as a result and that did Sutter no favors in terms of fans feelings about him.

 

Look back at what Benning said. No chance Sutter was ever living up to that billing and had not done so even up until that moment.

 

Benning has had some pretty spotty overestimation of guys he has paid through the nose for. Sutter and Gudbranson its almost laughable to look at the bill of goods he got sold on them.

To this day, I still laugh at the thought suggesting this guy would have been like Bergeron/M. Richards for the team.  Sutter hadn't even passed 40 pts in a season (and still hasn't), yet, was given a 5 year deal.  I actually remember making a status update questioning this trade and subsequent signing.

 

Regardless, those days are gone now.  If he stays healthy, he should be a fine 4C and should continue to assist the PK and clean up in the defensive side of things.

 

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, AV. said:

To this day, I still laugh at the thought suggesting this guy would have been like Bergeron/M. Richards for the team.  Sutter hadn't even passed 40 pts in a season (and still hasn't), yet, was given a 5 year deal.  I actually remember making a status update questioning this trade and subsequent signing.

 

Regardless, those days are gone now.  If he stays healthy, he should be a fine 4C and should continue to assist the PK and clean up in the defensive side of things.

 

I like Sutter for what he is (and always have). Now he is on a reasonable contract and hopefully a 4th line shutdown role and thats a net positive for the team.

[AV.]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

I like Sutter for what he is (and always have). Now he is on a reasonable contract and hopefully a 4th line shutdown role and thats a net positive for the team.

I think so, too.  It's weird to say but I almost look forward to watching him this upcoming season, knowing he isn't making north of 4M.  At a reasonable number this year, there will definitely be less pressure on him to be an impact or "foundational" player.

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, AV. said:

I think so, too.  It's weird to say but I almost look forward to watching him this upcoming season, knowing he isn't making north of 4M.  At a reasonable number this year, there will definitely be less pressure on him to be an impact or "foundational" player.

And the ironic thing is that I think in this role and without the pressure of a big contract we might see a very effective Sutter. As long as he can stay healthy. 

[Me_]

10 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Benning called him foundational 5 minutes after trading for him. Or 5 minutes after re-signing him to a terrible deal. I cant remember which. Either way it was a term used to justify getting absolutely fleeced in the trade.

Or…

 

If you’re on a team for five years… you’re kind of “foundational”…

[CanucksJay]

10 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Benning has had some pretty spotty overestimation of guys he has paid through the nose for. Sutter and Gudbranson its almost laughable to look at the bill of goods he got sold on them.

I think this is true but I like that in a GM. He sees a player and thinks of him as a great player and goes after him and is willing to pay a bit higher than market value to secure him. (he hasn't gone like crazy over market value but enough to get.the player he wants) 

It's the same gumption that allows him to pick Petterson at 5, or Hughes at 7. 

It's why he traded Vanek for Motte (even though I was like wtf at the time) 

That's why he traded a first for Miller. 

I don't think those were all no brainers. There was risk in it. (just like the OEL trade) 

JB is betting on OEL while most here are not. 

I would rather have a GM with a clear vision of what he wants and goes after it. They can't all be right but he is also a guy that fixes his mistakes. 

[tas]

11 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Benning called him foundational 5 minutes after trading for him. Or 5 minutes after re-signing him to a terrible deal. I cant remember which. Either way it was a term used to justify getting absolutely fleeced in the trade.

and then he proceeded to use sutter and some others as a stable base (or "foundation") to build a team on. 

 

foundational always meant that sutter was a good pro, a culture-carrier, a reliable, stable, low-maintenance guy who you always know what you're going to get and who you can trust with young players. 

 

bizarre that 5 years later people still haven't figured out what a foundation is. 

[TheRussianRocket1994]

29 minutes ago, tas said:

and then he proceeded to use sutter and some others as a stable base (or "foundation") to build a team on. 

 

foundational always meant that sutter was a good pro, a culture-carrier, a reliable, stable, low-maintenance guy who you always know what you're going to get and who you can trust with young players. 

 

bizarre that 5 years later people still haven't figured out what a foundation is. 

100% This! 

 

Plus, i don't understand why some can't separate the player and the money. So he got paid well before...should he have refused the money? Because of the higher dollars, he was trash? Lol! He was always a good player, but mainly had bad luck with injuries. Now, because of the lower money only, people want him on the team and he'll be good! Nothing has changed, just the dollar amt. Not saying the lower dollar amt isn't more suited though. 

[TheRussianRocket1994]

26 minutes ago, IRR said:

100% This! 

 

Plus, i don't understand why some can't separate the player and the money. So he got paid well before...should he have refused the money? Because of the higher dollars, he was trash? Lol! He was always a good player, but mainly had bad luck with injuries. Now, because of the lower money only, people want him on the team and he'll be good! Nothing has changed, just the dollar amt. Not saying the lower dollar amt isn't more suited though. 

Also, the league / teams are made up of different types of players with different roles...not all are elite scorers, but their roles are just as important. I don't think point production should be 100% linked to dollar amt (although it plays a role for sure, especially at the top end), meaning there are good players with not a lot of points that deserve to be paid well, just not as much as elite players obviously. Low points doesn't always equally league min. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by IRR

[Elias Pettersson]

Definition of foundational. : of, relating to, or forming or serving as a base or foundation

 

Sutter is the second longest serving Canuck after BO.  This year will be his 7th with the team, BO is at 8.  He may not have put up the points we thought he would and his injuries held him back from reaching his true potential.  But to be the second longest serving Canuck means that he is "foundational" in the sense that he has been a part of this team longer than almost anyone, so he could theoretically be called "foundational" in that sense...

[AV.]

47 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Definition of foundational. : of, relating to, or forming or serving as a base or foundation

 

Sutter is the second longest serving Canuck after BO.  This year will be his 7th with the team, BO is at 8.  He may not have put up the points we thought he would and his injuries held him back from reaching his true potential.  But to be the second longest serving Canuck means that he is "foundational" in the sense that he has been a part of this team longer than almost anyone, so he could theoretically be called "foundational" in that sense...

Thing is, I'd argue most would agree foundational is usually a synonymous term for core guys.  Guys like Horvat, Boeser, Pettersson (hi  ), Hughes, etc. would be appropriately listed as "foundational".  For me and others, it goes beyond just years of service, although I do think years of service can (in the right contexts) be a working metric to determine how important one is for a team (since turnover in the NHL can be frequent).

 

I think the notion of potential is also a bit misleading.  Historically, Sutter has been a great periphery piece and served as one in both Carolina (behind E. Staal and Brind'Amour, although may have played a bit higher at times) and in Pittsburgh (behind Crosby and Malkin).  Nothing about his game then would have suggested him to be successful in a "foundational" role.  The Canucks paid him like a low-end 2C, and injuries aside, he had never demonstrated he could even be more than a good 3C at that point in his career, let alone going forward.  Not his fault but more of a risky gamble on the part of management.  I suppose they looked at Bonino's offensive production and felt that Sutter could match that + offer more on the defensive side of the game.  Whatever the case, to call a guy suited for the bottom six as "foundational" was always bizarre.  How many of those guys existed in the modern game, anyway?  Draper?  Cizikas?  

 

I think it's a good he's sticking around this year because he'll finally be in a much more appropriate role and be compensated appropriately.

[bishopshodan]

Some wonderful poster pointed out in another thread that he thought foundational is essentially the same as core in reference to a player.

 

He claimed JB had stated Butter was a core player. I corrected him with the fact that JB said foundational, he responded with something like..."that's what adults call splitting hairs"

 

Maybe I am splitting hairs but I see foundational as a bit different than core.

 

A foundational player is a mentor/leader that has a consistent professional presence for the rest of the team.

 

I think core players can be foundational but not all of them are. I see core players as the ones that hold down the top ice times and play in the core positions, top 6 fwds, top 4 Dmen, goalie. They are sometimes here for a long time, sometimes a season or two, they can be mentors, some of them are just playing for a paycheck. 

 

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Some wonderful poster pointed out in another thread that he thought foundational is essentially the same as core in reference to a player.

 

He claimed JB had stated Butter was a core player. I corrected him with the fact that JB said foundational, he responded with something like..."that's what adults call splitting hairs"

 

Maybe I am splitting hairs but I see foundational as a bit different than core.

 

A foundational player is a mentor/leader that has a consistent professional presence for the rest of the team.

 

I think core players can be foundational but not all of them are. I see core players as the ones that hold down the top ice times and play in the core positions, top 6 fwds, top 4 Dmen, goalie. They are sometimes here for a long time, sometimes a season or two, they can be mentors, some of them are just playing for a paycheck. 

 

I don't mind the distinction.  Mats Sundin certainly wasn't a core player (he played half a season) on our team when he joined but it's very clear he provided a lasting impact on the Sedins, Kesler, Edler, and likely others.  In a sense, he was very instrumental and "foundational" to equipping that team to take the next steps.

 

For me, I am of the position that in a cap world, your allocation to players needs to be strategic.  It follows that your best players should be your highest earners, and your best mentors, and so on and so forth.  We can't be compensating some guys to score and some guys for intangibles, there just isn't enough cap-space to go around to do that.  I don't think Brandon Sutter should have ever been placed in that role or compensated as such.  With that said, he's in a much better spot now.

[RWMc1]

Our idiot media clowns could have asked Benning, at any time, "What do you mean by foundational?" Instead they latch on to one word and use it as a whining point for years. That's one of the many reasons that most fans have no respect for a large segment of our local media.

 

He did his role just fine. Pkers and defensive players are almost always belittled by our "knowledgeable"  fans and the idiot media clowns.

[wallstreetamigo]

4 hours ago, tas said:

and then he proceeded to use sutter and some others as a stable base (or "foundation") to build a team on. 

 

foundational always meant that sutter was a good pro, a culture-carrier, a reliable, stable, low-maintenance guy who you always know what you're going to get and who you can trust with young players. 

 

bizarre that 5 years later people still haven't figured out what a foundation is. 

Funny, thats not exactly how Benning hyped him up to the fans.

 

How well did all those "stable pros" and "foundational players" actually do in creating a winning culture, providing consistency, and helping the young players to become winners?

 

The reality is they really didnt. The Canucks have been a bottom feeder team the whole time. 

 

The only real positive those players brought was the fact that they spectacularly failed to do what Benning promised they would do. That is the main reason the Canucks finished so low in the standings and were able to draft the true culture carriers of the team.

 

Sutter as a 4th line guy on a cheap contract is helpful. In the top 6 and on the PP with a top 6 contract? Not so much.

[Elias Pettersson]

43 minutes ago, AV. said:

Thing is, I'd argue most would agree foundational is usually a synonymous term for core guys.  Guys like Horvat, Boeser, Pettersson (hi  ), Hughes, etc. would be appropriately listed as "foundational".  For me and others, it goes beyond just years of service, although I do think years of service can (in the right contexts) be a working metric to determine how important one is for a team (since turnover in the NHL can be frequent).

 

I think the notion of potential is also a bit misleading.  Historically, Sutter has been a great periphery piece and served as one in both Carolina (behind E. Staal and Brind'Amour, although may have played a bit higher at times) and in Pittsburgh (behind Crosby and Malkin).  Nothing about his game then would have suggested him to be successful in a "foundational" role.  The Canucks paid him like a low-end 2C, and injuries aside, he had never demonstrated he could even be more than a good 3C at that point in his career, let alone going forward.  Not his fault but more of a risky gamble on the part of management.  I suppose they looked at Bonino's offensive production and felt that Sutter could match that + offer more on the defensive side of the game.  Whatever the case, to call a guy suited for the bottom six as "foundational" was always bizarre.  How many of those guys existed in the modern game, anyway?  Draper?  Cizikas?  

 

I think it's a good he's sticking around this year because he'll finally be in a much more appropriate role and be compensated appropriately.

I would agree that on most occasions your core guys will also be your building blocks (foundational pieces).  There are a few examples of guys coming in to help a team win a cup who are playing in the top 6 or top 4 Dmen and only stick around for a short while.  But for the most part it is the core group that you assemble that will hopefully stick together long enough to make a run at a cup.

 

Tenure is also important as most teams who win cups have players who have been around since the start of building the "foundation" of the team.  Most would have been drafted and developed by that team.  Petey (  ), Hughes, Demko, Horvat, Boeser, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Juolevi (maybe), Rathbone (maybe).  These players are the core of our team.  And Benning has surrounded them with hopefully enough talent to make a run in next year's playoffs.

 

In regards to Sutter, hindsight is 20/20.  Looking back we would have been better off just keeping Bonino, but if you go back to 2015 you have to look at the roster Benning was given and then ask yourself if you would have been comfortable moving forward with Henrik as your 1C for the next several years and BO as a 2C and Bonino as a 3C.  Henrik was already declining and BO was only 20, McCann came in as a 19 year old.  And we had Bonino.  I believe the logic there was to trade Bonino to get Sutter who could be a low end 2C and fill in for Henrik in the top 6 and eventually take over a top 6 spot while BO was still developing.  Benning probably didn't see that potential in Bonino but saw it in Sutter.  We will never know how it would have ended up if Sutter had remained healthy and been able to play full seasons with the Canucks.  In the end the deal did backfire on Benning but the Sutter injuries could not have been predicted given the fact he only missed 3 games in the 5 seasons prior to the trade.  He was being looked at as an iron man of sorts at the time really.  It was just bizzare how he managed to get injured so often as soon as he got off the airplane and arrived in Vancouver.

 

One positive of that trade that nobody mentions is that we drafted William Lockwood with that 3rd rounder we got from Pittsburgh.  I like him alot.  Maybe he comes in and becomes a good 3rd/4th line energy player for us and minimizes the damage to some degree of the Sutter deal...