Confirmed with Link: [VAN/LA] Canucks acquire F Tyler Toffoli for Tim Schaller, Tyler Madden, 2020 2nd Round Pick

[vanuck]

Exactly. So you agree.

Benning thinking he got away with one and laughing wouldn't be the indicator of us getting a steal that you might seem to think. Again, see his overall record.

 

[F A N]

This isn't usually my go-to for Canucks analysis, but I thought this was a very good article today:

Canucks continue to risk their future with short-term thinking | Offside

I thought he did a great job summarizing the entire situation, but the important part to me is the thought that while you can do these sort of "rental" trades once in awhile, you can't do them every year.. which I 100% agree with. It really brought home the sense of urgency to make the playoffs that has been self-created by this management group due the past years of bumbling. I really don't like that the first touch of being in the playoff mix they are willing to do this type of deal as opposed to a very specific situation which may come up when the team is a bit more well-established.

Basically to say, it's going to be extremely hard to make this type of deal in a couple of years knowing they have already pushed out a 1st, 2nd, 3rd & top prospect within the last 12 months here. And possibly more to come this deadline, and then even more to help shed a contract in the off-season. It just feels like they're paying their bills with a credit card already and it's going to catch up very, very quickly.

I agree that you definitely can't make "rental" trades every year. But I also think it's important to make the playoffs and not have a losing culture. I think a lot of people don't realize or have forgotten that the Canucks have drafted in the top 10 six out of the past 7 years. While not every one of those picks have panned out, at least a couple off them have been home runs or even grand slams. The point is that very few teams have had so many top 10 picks in the same time span and fewer have a better collection of core players.

While every team could use another top 10 pick, at some point you have to make a push. Maybe the Canucks are not the bubble team that some posters here think. Maybe Petey is a franchise 1st line C, Miller is a first line winger, Hughes is a franchise #1 Dman, and Markstrom is a Vezina calibre goalie. If Boeser and Leivo manages to come back for the playoffs and aren't rusty then the team is pretty deep up front with everyone healthy. D becomes the biggest question mark.

 

[F A N]

Benning thinking he got away with one and laughing wouldn't be the indicator of us getting a steal that you might seem to think. Again, see his overall record.

No one is saying it is an indicator of anything but you. That's the point. It means nothing.

 

[vanuck]

No one is saying it is an indicator of anything but you. That's the point. It means nothing.

All I'm saying here is both sides have very different ideas of what constitutes a win. We paid too much here, but of course he wouldn't think that.

 

[Peter10]

To NYI- Brock Boeser, Troy Stecher
To Van- Noah Dobson, 3rd rd pick

Trade a retained Brandon Sutter for a pick($3mil cap hit)
Trade Tryamkin for a pick
Trade Demko for picks

Sign-
Brendan Dillon
Tyler Toffoli
Chris Tanev
Jacob Markstrom
Josh Leivo

Miller Pettersson Toffoli
Pearson Horvat Leivo
Roussel Gaudette Virtanen
MacEwen Beagle Motte
Ferland

Hughes Tanev
Dillon Myers
Edler Dobson
Fantenberg Rafferty

Markstrom
Veteran backup

Tell me, does that team look like it's over the cap? I will let you decide what the players sign for.

And I didn't even get into the possibility of Eriksson refusing to report to Utica, or adding a prospect to Baertschi get create more space. If Ferland isn't good to go, $3.5mil more to work with.

It looks way over the cap. And that you had to deal away one of the top fowards to make it work is even more laughable.

Assumed salary cap: 84m (generous i would say)

UFA:s
Toffoli 5.5m
Leivo 3m
Dillon 4m
Markstrom 5.5m
Tanev 5m
Fantenberg 1m

RFA:
Virtanen 3m
Motte 1.5m
Gaudette 1.5m
MacEwen 1m

You also forgot Benn and his 2m, so I kept him on the roster instead of Rafferty but also kept Demko and his low caphit instead of a UFA backup which should almost equal out. I demoted Eriksson to get the 1,075,000 relief.

If you trade Sutter with retention the highest you can go is 2,187,500, so thats actually saving more than 800k to what you proposed.

All this gives you a caphit of $86,256,539 and does not include the $1.7m bonus carry over from this year for Pettersson and Hughes.

Conclusion: You are trading away a first line point per game forward, end up roughly 4m over the salary cap and have a arguably worse team that this year.

 

[m9]

I agree that you definitely can't make "rental" trades every year. But I also think it's important to make the playoffs and not have a losing culture. I think a lot of people don't realize or have forgotten that the Canucks have drafted in the top 10 six out of the past 7 years. While not every one of those picks have panned out, at least a couple off them have been home runs or even grand slams. The point is that very few teams have had so many top 10 picks in the same time span and fewer have a better collection of core players.

While every team could use another top 10 pick, at some point you have to make a push. Maybe the Canucks are not the bubble team that some posters here think. Maybe Petey is a franchise 1st line C, Miller is a first line winger, Hughes is a franchise #1 Dman, and Markstrom is a Vezina calibre goalie. If Boeser and Leivo manages to come back for the playoffs and aren't rusty then the team is pretty deep up front with everyone healthy. D becomes the biggest question mark.

I don't think missing the playoffs mean a losing culture. I would associate a losing culture more with being at the bottom of the standings for multiple years like they did in the past. This year, regardless of whether or not they make the playoffs they have put that behind them. Between winning more games this year and the influx of players who weren't a part of those past teams, I think the "losing culture" is a complete zero at this point.

In terms of "some point you have to make a push", no arguments here. The thing that the article I posted touched on was that why is the first season that they are on the brink of the playoffs "some point"?If you are looking at the hockey team from a progression standpoint, they have made a natural progression this year regardless of whether or not they make the playoffs. To me it just looks more like a GM trying to secure his job than actually making a decision for the long-term of the team. Do you think they make this "push" if this was year 2 or 3 of the regime and not year 6?

The fact that the team has a good young core is exactly the point of the article questioning whether or not now is the time to go in with rentals. If this was a veteran team then it makes more sense to push in before the team goes on a descent. There are multiple core pieces that are going to be here for a long time and conceivably will have many similar opportunities. There are some parts of this year that might make it seem special (division sucks, players on ELCs) but I think there will always be different reasons to go for it if you talk yourself into it.

 

[HockeyWooot]

I don't think missing the playoffs mean a losing culture. I would associate a losing culture more with being at the bottom of the standings for multiple years like they did in the past. This year, regardless of whether or not they make the playoffs they have put that behind them. Between winning more games this year and the influx of players who weren't a part of those past teams, I think the "losing culture" is a complete zero at this point.

In terms of "some point you have to make a push", no arguments here. The thing that the article I posted touched on was that why is the first season that they are on the brink of the playoffs "some point"?If you are looking at the hockey team from a progression standpoint, they have made a natural progression this year regardless of whether or not they make the playoffs. To me it just looks more like a GM trying to secure his job than actually making a decision for the long-term of the team. Do you think they make this "push" if this was year 2 or 3 of the regime and not year 6?

The fact that the team has a good young core is exactly the point of the article questioning whether or not now is the time to go in with rentals. If this was a veteran team then it makes more sense to push in before the team goes on a descent. There are multiple core pieces that are going to be here for a long time and conceivably will have many similar opportunities. There are some parts of this year that might make it seem special (division sucks, players on ELCs) but I think there will always be different reasons to go for it if you talk yourself into it.

Don’t necessarily disagree with this. I think it’s ultimately a judgement call? I do think part of the move is Benning trying to secure job security, for sure. It wouldn’t be the only reason it may be worth making a push though.

I think with how Petey and Hughes have emerged, the window for our team has been pushed forward, sooner than expected. They are emerging superstars in just year 2 and 1 respectively.

We have a very good young core. Playing meaningful hockey down the stretch, making the playoffs and even winning a round would do wonders for their development. Having a losing team for too long (eg pre-McDdrai Oilers) is probably not great for developing players.

Nothing is guaranteed though. Will they have another level over the next few years, or will they run into bad injury luck and stagnate (eg Boeser)?

Markstrom playing out of his mind. Miller, Pearson, Virtanen and Gaudette are producing at a higher rate than expected. Hopefully this will continue next year , but it may not.

If we finish out of the playoffs it would be a big missed opportunity. While there’s a reasonable chance our young core improve next year, I would imagine management see getting into playoffs this year as a risk worth taking to ensure they do take the next step.

If we get into the playoffs anything could happen. We could go on a run, or we could get swept by lower seed team in the first round who outwork is and play better team defence. Either ways it is a good experience for a young up and coming team m.

 

[bandwagonesque]

If you want to get a sense of a GM overpaying, just look at when both teams decide to pull the trigger. LA accepted the deal ahead of the deadline because they were reasonably sure the price would not be beaten. Asset value. VAN jumped ahead because they knew about Boeser’s injury. Motivation. This is why the deal happens ahead of time, and it’s a clear marker of the price paid.

Put another way, there would be little impetus for LA to execute this deal ahead of schedule lest they felt assured that better assets could not have been had later.

Is this also true for the huge and increasing proportion of "deadline" trades completed well in advance of the deadline over the last few years?

 

[Sneezy]

All I'm saying here is both sides have very different ideas of what constitutes a win. We paid too much here, but of course he wouldn't think that.

I also dont think we paid too much.

 

[m9]

Don’t necessarily disagree with this. I think it’s ultimately a judgement call? I do think part of the move is Benning trying to secure job security, for sure. It wouldn’t be the only reason it may be worth making a push though.

I think with how Petey and Hughes have emerged, the window for our team has been pushed forward, sooner than expected. They are emerging superstars in just year 2 and 1 respectively.

We have a very good young core. Playing meaningful hockey down the stretch, making the playoffs and even winning a round would do wonders for their development. Having a losing team for too long (eg pre-McDdrai Oilers) is probably not great for developing players.

Nothing is guaranteed though. Will they have another level over the next few years, or will they run into bad injury luck and stagnate (eg Boeser)?

Markstrom playing out of his mind. Miller, Pearson, Virtanen and Gaudette are producing at a higher rate than expected. Hopefully this will continue next year , but it may not.

If we finish out of the playoffs it would be a big missed opportunity. While there’s a reasonable chance our young core improve next year, I would imagine management see getting into playoffs this year as a risk worth taking to ensure they do take the next step.

If we get into the playoffs anything could happen. We could go on a run, or we could get swept by lower seed team in the first round who outwork is and play better team defence. Either ways it is a good experience for a young up and coming team m.

I agree that missing the playoffs would be a missed opportunity - the division is weak and the conference is open. I don't necessarily think that adding a player or two will ultimately be the difference though. The team has an 80%+ chance of making the playoffs regardless of whether or not they trade for Toffoli.

In the big picture though, making the playoffs this year and even winning a round shouldn't be big deal either way due to their young core. Their young players that are good are going to be just fine either way. Most of the urgency is self-created by management due to a) their failures the last 4 years & b) the pending cap situation in the next two years. I don't think that's the proper motivation for making trades.

 

[Hoghandler]

It looks way over the cap. And that you had to deal away one of the top fowards to make it work is even more laughable.

Assumed salary cap: 84m (generous i would say)

UFA:s
Toffoli 5.5m
Leivo 3m
Dillon 4m
Markstrom 5.5m
Tanev 5m
Fantenberg 1m

RFA:
Virtanen 3m
Motte 1.5m
Gaudette 1.5m
MacEwen 1m

Conclusion: You are trading away a first line point per game forward, end up roughly 4m over the salary cap and have a arguably worse team that this year.

First off, let's get one thing clear; Brock Boeser isn't being traded to make the cap work, he's being traded because the team is deep on the wing, while really lacking a young right side dman to build around. Boeser is one of very few pieces the Canucks have to find that player, hence the acquisition of Dobson. You're hoping Dobson develops into the Seabrook to Hughes' Duncan Keith. The Tyler Toffoli acquisition makes this deal possible, and the organisation looks better balanced long term with Boeser converted into a right side dman IMO.

I'm not going to quibble much with your cap hits, as everyone has different opinions here. But a 27 year old Leivo, coming off a broken knee cap, that doesn't have a 25 point season to his name yet ain't getting $3mil. Cut that in half.

Sutter was dealt with a $3mil cap hit - $1.3mil retention...

Are you assuming Baertschi is unmovable? Couldn't they attach a prospect to him and be free of another $3.3mil?

Loui Eriksson is riding busses in Utica for 2 years away from his family for a paltry $1.3mil a year? If he's informed he's done as a Canuck, that seems a bit unlikely, no?

What if Jacob Markstrom won't come off his ask of 5-6 years term? IMO you have to walk away and go with Demko.

What if Tanev wants 4 years or more to stay? With his injury history, that's not a deal you lock into IMO.

Maybe you forego Dillon and see what a $1.5mil Tryamkin can give you, saving another $2.5mil against the cap...

Does the depth on the wings mean Antoine Roussel gets dealt? Does Benn want to be traded where he can be an everyday NHL player?

As I said a week ago, there are still a ton of moving parts between now and the draft. Too early to be locking into final rosters at this point, which was hammered home now that we are trying to work in an extra $5mil with the addition of Toffoli.

Bottom line, you can see there are countless permutations where this team comes back next season with it's UFA's in tow. At least the ones with reasonable demands.

 

[Peter10]

First off, let's get one thing clear; Brock Boeser isn't being traded to make the cap work, he's being traded because the team is deep on the wing, while really lacking a young right side dman to build around. Boeser is one of very few pieces the Canucks have to find that player, hence the acquisition of Dobson. You're hoping Dobson develops into the Seabrook to Hughes' Duncan Keith. The Tyler Toffoli acquisition makes this deal possible, and the organisation looks better balanced long term with Boeser converted into a right side dman IMO.

I'm not going to quibble much with your cap hits, as everyone has different opinions here. But a 27 year old Leivo, coming off a broken knee cap, that doesn't have a 25 point season to his name yet ain't getting $3mil. Cut that in half.

Sutter was dealt with a $3mil cap hit - $1.3mil retention...

Are you assuming Baertschi is unmovable? Couldn't they attach a prospect to him and be free of another $3.3mil?

Loui Eriksson is riding busses in Utica for 2 years away from his family for a paltry $1.3mil a year? If he's informed he's done as a Canuck, that seems a bit unlikely, no?

What if Jacob Markstrom won't come off his ask of 5-6 years term? IMO you have to walk away and go with Demko.

What if Tanev wants 4 years or more to stay? With his injury history, that's not a deal you lock into IMO.

Maybe you forego Dillon and see what a $1.5mil Tryamkin can give you, saving another $2.5mil against the cap...

Does the depth on the wings mean Antoine Roussel gets dealt? Does Benn want to be traded where he can be an everyday NHL player?

As I said a week ago, there are still a ton of moving parts between now and the draft. Too early to be locking into final rosters at this point, which was hammered home now that we are trying to work in an extra $5mil with the addition of Toffoli.

Bottom line, you can see there are countless permutations where this team comes back next season with it's UFA's in tow. At least the ones with reasonable demands.

So you said the team can easily be fit under the cap without moving Eriksson or trading Baertschi along with a prospect and then after being shown that it doesn't by a country mile you come up with millions of what ifs. Of course there are a lot of options to make it work but all cone at a price and most of them will hurt the team asset wise.

It also doesn't matter whether Boeser gets dealt for cap reasons or something else. You deal a high end goal scorer for a young defenseman who likely needs a bit more time before making a noticeable impact. It makes your team worse on short term while you try to compete.

Again, post a team with what you consider reasonable cap hits that fit under the cap instead if just throwing names around.

 

[F A N]

All I'm saying here is both sides have very different ideas of what constitutes a win. We paid too much here, but of course he wouldn't think that.

Right except that having two winners haven't crossed your mind. Tampa got the deal they wanted. So did the Canucks. In hindsight, would Miller be the guy you trade from that team? If someone offered a 26 year old 1st line winger on a good contract with term for a future mid to late first round pick and a 3rd would you not take the deal laughing?

Similarly, LA got the deal they wanted. Benning never said that he got a steal or felt he "won" the trade. It was a deal that he was willing to make and it made a lot of sense for a team that have been making moves in hopes of making he playoffs. If the Canucks miss the playoffs because Benning stood pat then plenty of fans would blame Benning for standing pat. Just because a hefty price was paid doesn't meant that one side got screwed.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

I agree that missing the playoffs would be a missed opportunity - the division is weak and the conference is open. I don't necessarily think that adding a player or two will ultimately be the difference though. The team has an 80%+ chance of making the playoffs regardless of whether or not they trade for Toffoli.

In the big picture though, making the playoffs this year and even winning a round shouldn't be big deal either way due to their young core. Their young players that are good are going to be just fine either way. Most of the urgency is self-created by management due to a) their failures the last 4 years & b) the pending cap situation in the next two years. I don't think that's the proper motivation for making trades.

Your first paragraph is all that really needs to be said.

Is Toffoli a difference maker? Not likely.

And we already paid for a difference maker this year in Miller who unlike Toffoli is not an UFA.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Is Toffoli a difference maker? Not likely.

Toffoli is a gap filler until Boeser gets back.

In the words of Benning himself.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

Toffoli is a gap filler until Boeser gets back.

In the words of Benning himself.

And then what?

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

And then what?

And then....A Stanley Cup!

A big parade. Probably a riot.

 

[Hoghandler]

So you said the team can easily be fit under the cap without moving Eriksson or trading Baertschi along with a prospect and then after being shown that it doesn't by a country mile you come up with millions of what ifs. Of course there are a lot of options to make it work but all cone at a price and most of them will hurt the team asset wise.

It also doesn't matter whether Boeser gets dealt for cap reasons or something else. You deal a high end goal scorer for a young defenseman who likely needs a bit more time before making a noticeable impact. It makes your team worse on short term while you try to compete.

Again, post a team with what you consider reasonable cap hits that fit under the cap instead if just throwing names around.

Of course it will come at a price if you want to sign Toffoli, Marsktrom and Tanev. Welcome to the salary cap era. Every single player you sign comes at a price; the opportunity cost of not being able to afford others. Signing Markstrom and Tanev comes at a cost of not signing a Vatanen and Krug as well...

Yes, trading Boeser for a young building block on defense will likely cause the offense to take a step back. That's the price you pay to add a blue-chip young asset on defense, something this organisation desperately needs. And with the addition of Toffoli, a player that can step into Brock's role on the top line and first unit PP, it makes it a possible scenario; and something you couldn't really afford to do before.

There are countless different ways to come back next year with the team's top UFA's in tow. Whether or not it makes sense to sign them will likely come down to their demands for term. That remains to be seen.

 

[ChilliBilly]

If we get past the first round I guess this trade will be a win. The whole city will be on fire and excited.

I see this move as desperation because Boeser got injured. Losing what is usually the first line winger on a bumble team that is desperate to make the playoffs.

I hope like hell that we do make the playoffs so that the first round draft pick we gave up doesn’t bite us in the ass. Too badly .

 

[Hoghandler]

If we get past the first round I guess this trade will be a win. The whole city will be on fire and excited.

I see this move as desperation because Boeser got injured. Losing what is usually the first line winger on a bumble team that is desperate to make the playoffs.

I hope like hell that we do make the playoffs so that the first round draft pick we gave up doesn’t bite us in the ass. Too badly .

It wasn't just Boeser. It was the top 3 RW'ers the team had coming into the season all being shut down for the year. That's a huge blow, and you could see the effects ripple through the forward corps.

Will be interesting to see how Toffoli performs on that 1st line and in the bumper position on the top PP unit. If he comes in and can match what we get out of Brock, how do you let Toffoli walk at the end of the year? What if he looks like an even better fit...

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Your first paragraph is all that really needs to be said.

Is Toffoli a difference maker? Not likely.

And we already paid for a difference maker this year in Miller who unlike Toffoli is not an UFA.

Toffoli is definitely a difference maker. He’s a top 6 forward...

 

[F A N]

I don't think missing the playoffs mean a losing culture. I would associate a losing culture more with being at the bottom of the standings for multiple years like they did in the past. This year, regardless of whether or not they make the playoffs they have put that behind them. Between winning more games this year and the influx of players who weren't a part of those past teams, I think the "losing culture" is a complete zero at this point.

How often do teams JUST miss the playoffs and do so during the last few games of the year? Missing the playoffs season after season often does result in a losing culture. I agree that the losing culture hasn't set in yet. There has been a big turnover and among our core young players, except for Horvat, haven't been in the league for long. If the goal is to win the Cup you have to evaluate the team based on its ability to contend for the Cup. Logically, you can't do that until you see your players play in the playoffs. We are loving JT Miller now, but what would you think of Miller if he has another 0 goal 2-3 assist performance in the playoffs? If that happens I'll probably give him one more shot but I would be very concerned.

In terms of "some point you have to make a push", no arguments here. The thing that the article I posted touched on was that why is the first season that they are on the brink of the playoffs "some point"?If you are looking at the hockey team from a progression standpoint, they have made a natural progression this year regardless of whether or not they make the playoffs. To me it just looks more like a GM trying to secure his job than actually making a decision for the long-term of the team. Do you think they make this "push" if this was year 2 or 3 of the regime and not year 6?

The fact that the team has a good young core is exactly the point of the article questioning whether or not now is the time to go in with rentals. If this was a veteran team then it makes more sense to push in before the team goes on a descent. There are multiple core pieces that are going to be here for a long time and conceivably will have many similar opportunities. There are some parts of this year that might make it seem special (division sucks, players on ELCs) but I think there will always be different reasons to go for it if you talk yourself into it.

I think it was Lebrun or someone who said this on 1040 a couple of days ago. He was talking to a GM and the GM was praising Benning. The main point was that there are teams who make these big moves in the summer only to lift their gas off the pedal come deadline time and the question is why. It kind of makes sense if you think about it. If you think Benning has made all these "win now" moves, then why stop at the deadline when you have a chance of increasing the odds of achieving the goal you set out. Of course the counter to that is that you have already traded away your first in the summer and you don't want to keep trading away pieces of the future for immediate help.

 

[m9]

How often do teams JUST miss the playoffs and do so during the last few games of the year? Missing the playoffs season after season often does result in a losing culture. I agree that the losing culture hasn't set in yet. There has been a big turnover and among our core young players, except for Horvat, haven't been in the league for long. If the goal is to win the Cup you have to evaluate the team based on its ability to contend for the Cup. Logically, you can't do that until you see your players play in the playoffs. We are loving JT Miller now, but what would you think of Miller if he has another 0 goal 2-3 assist performance in the playoffs? If that happens I'll probably give him one more shot but I would be very concerned.

I think it was Lebrun or someone who said this on 1040 a couple of days ago. He was talking to a GM and the GM was praising Benning. The main point was that there are teams who make these big moves in the summer only to lift their gas off the pedal come deadline time and the question is why. It kind of makes sense if you think about it. If you think Benning has made all these "win now" moves, then why stop at the deadline when you have a chance of increasing the odds of achieving the goal you set out. Of course the counter to that is that you have already traded away your first in the summer and you don't want to keep trading away pieces of the future for immediate help.

Honestly I don't really care about other teams that have just missed the playoffs and other teams losing cultures, I care only about this team. I think we both agree that regardless of how this season ends there is no danger of a "losing culture" being a thing at this time. I'm not saying it doesn't exist and I'm not saying it won't happen in the future, I just don't think it's a thing for this current team based on what we've discussed like the team's improvement & the player turnover.

As for pushing in this year, I don't consider making the playoffs a particularly lofty goal so you shouldn't need to push in multiple high drafts & prospects to make that happen. And I guess that's the whole point of the article - what's the end game here? They've chosen to use these resources to make the playoffs as opposed to being patient and trying to build something bigger. Or alternatively, why not use those resources on someone that has a clear path to helping your team this year and in future years as opposed to an UFA?

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Toffoli is a gap filler until Boeser gets back.

Toffoli is good offensively but he also has a solid overall game, excellent 2-way play, ability to play on the PK etc. He’s not that far behind Boeser’s level and is a legitimate top 6 forward.

 

[clay]

With Toffoli’s solid overall game, good 2-way play, ability to play on the PK and excellent playoff resume, he’s definitely on par with Boeser.

This is insane. Toffoli is a 43 point/82 game player over the past 4 seasons. Boeser is 5 years younger and has averaged 67 points/82 games to start his career.