2020/2021 Around the League Thread

[sandwichbird2023]

What? Do you have 99% of the posters here on ignore, or something? Of course we are a better team with Marky, Tanev, and Tofu. Benning didn’t sign these three, because he has 20 plus million tied up in toxic (pretty much dead) contracts.
Why do you think Miller said he was shocked, and (even) Bo said he was surprised with our not resigning those three top UFAs?

I tried explaining it to him not even 24 hours ago, I think he is just incapable of understanding the situation. The idea of holding Benning responsible for wasting $25m of this year's cap is too much for some posters to take in. That is why their arguments always boils down to "would you sign Markstrom to 6x6" without being able to acknowledge the fact that the question should've been "would you sign Markstrom to 6x6 had we not wasted $25m of the cap."

 

[mriswith]

I tried explaining it to him not even 24 hours ago, I think he is just incapable of understanding the situation. The idea of holding Benning responsible for wasting $25m of this year's cap is too much for some posters to take in. That is why their arguments always boils down to "would you sign Markstrom to 6x6" without being able to acknowledge the fact that the question should've been "would you sign Markstrom to 6x6 had we not wasted $25m of the cap."

He's not incapable of understanding.

He's disingenuous and understands he can only win if he straw mans the argument to the extreme.

A common sight in the management thread, for the few who brave those waters.

 

[4Twenty]

lmao the usual suspects dumping on players once they leave the organization as usual. I guess when your lovely GM is paying nearly 15 million dollars for players to literally not play on your team you have to keep grasping at straws to make him look good.

They’re going to pretend like they hated Benning the whole time when he’s gone.

 

[Fatass]

Reading the Calgary board, and it’s no surprise to me how those fans are excited to see Hanifin having a breakout season. Oh, guess who Hanifin’s partner is? Yup, Tanev.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

I tried explaining it to him not even 24 hours ago, I think he is just incapable of understanding the situation. The idea of holding Benning responsible for wasting $25m of this year's cap is too much for some posters to take in. That is why their arguments always boils down to "would you sign Markstrom to 6x6" without being able to acknowledge the fact that the question should've been "would you sign Markstrom to 6x6 had we not wasted $25m of the cap."

Cap issues had nothing to do with it, so it's a deflection from the question. We had enough cap space to sign both Markstrom and Tanev. Where the organization balked was a 6 year commitment to a 31 year old goaltender with injury issues that would have forced them to give up Demko; similar with Tanev, whose major injury issues and "decline in play" seem to have been completely forgotten by the narrative drivers. It's interesting that going with Demko over Markstrom was seemingly favored in the summer, and now people are switching sides very quickly. It's good to be getting some names at least of people who would have signed those deals. We'll see in a couple years if they were right, or Benning was right.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Cap issues had nothing to do with it, so it's a deflection from the question. We had enough cap space to sign both Markstrom and Tanev. Where the organization balked was a 6 year commitment to a 31 year old goaltender with injury issues that would have forced them to give up Demko; similar with Tanev, whose major injury issues and "decline in play" seem to have been completely forgotten by the narrative drivers. It's interesting that going with Demko over Markstrom was seemingly favored in the summer, and now people are switching sides very quickly. It's good to be getting some names at least of people who would have signed those deals. We'll see in a couple years if they were right, or Benning was right.

Again, you simply don't understand how committing $25m to barely NHL level players can handcuff a team's ability to retain its own. You also don't understand how, given that the team was tied down by that $25m dead cap, THEN the obvious choice in the summer was to walk away from Markstrom. I know adding one additional factor can be confusing, but it was never a question of "would you sign Markstrom 6x6?" It has always been "now that we have $25m committed to replacement level players, and with Petterson and Hughes needing an extension next off season, should we sign Markstrom to 6x6?"
In a few years if Markstrom's play decline, you are more than welcome to come back and say "Benning was right...to sign Eriksson/Myers/Beagle/Roussel/Gagner so that we can avoid one bad contract years down the road and miss out on a cup window during Petterson and Hughes' ELC/prime years."

 

[4Twenty]

Cap issues had everything to do with it. When your cap is so bad and limits your flexibility to do much of anything and instead of improving your squad you’re just replacing hopefully like for like, in the 7th season on the job after going all in and getting lucky with a pandemic, it effectively limits what you can do.

They were up to 5 years with Markstrom in the negotiation as well.

Losing Demko? Or trading him to get rid of cap space would certainly have been a reasonable option.

The people who only want to evaluate the moves under the focus of only this offseason completely miss the plot. You have to evaluate what led to the position you were in.

The Canucks were capped out and lost 4 important players because of it.

 

[MS]

I tried explaining it to him not even 24 hours ago, I think he is just incapable of understanding the situation. The idea of holding Benning responsible for wasting $25m of this year's cap is too much for some posters to take in. That is why their arguments always boils down to "would you sign Markstrom to 6x6" without being able to acknowledge the fact that the question should've been "would you sign Markstrom to 6x6 had we not wasted $25m of the cap."

And also committing the Ehrhoff Fallacy where you act like the contract the player got on the open market later would have been the contract required to keep the player in much earlier negotiations.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

Again, you simply don't understand how committing $25m to barely NHL level players can handcuff a team's ability to retain its own. You also don't understand how, given that the team was tied down by that $25m dead cap, THEN the obvious choice in the summer was to walk away from Markstrom. I know adding one additional factor can be confusing, but it was never a question of "would you sign Markstrom 6x6?" It has always been "now that we have $25m committed to replacement level players, and with Petterson and Hughes needing an extension next off season, should we sign Markstrom to 6x6?"
In a few years if Markstrom's play decline, you are more than welcome to come back and say "Benning was right...to sign Eriksson/Myers/Beagle/Roussel/Gagner so that we can avoid one bad contract years down the road and miss out on a cup window during Petterson and Hughes' ELC/prime years."

Most of that "dead cap" with its eternally revolving cast of characters--was Pearson dead cap last season? Sutter last night? Beagle so far this season?--is coming off the books in a year or two and has little influence on the Markstrom and Tanev deals. Those deals would not have restricted the Canucks in any way from signing Pettersson or Hughes. The Canucks added 10 million in contacts this summer, for this year and next, which could have gone to Markstrom and Tanev. The Canucks simply made an evaluation, favoring Schmidt over Tanev, and Demko's prime as aligning better with our young core than Markstrom's. So again, you're just deflecting from the question, just like those who argue they would have "super negotiated" Markstrom and Tanev into discounted deals. But it is good information that people refuse to answer the question directly, suggesting fear that Benning's evaluation will be proved correct in time.

 

[MS]

Most of that "dead cap" with its evolving cast of characters--was Pearson dead cap last season? Sutter last night?--is coming off the books in a year or two and has little influence on the Markstrom and Tanev deals. Those deals would not have restricted the Canucks in any way from signing Pettersson or Hughes. The Canucks simply made an evaluation, favoring Schmidt over Tanev, and Demko's prime as aligning better with our young core than Markstrom's. So again, you're just deflecting from the question, just like those who argue they would have "super negotiated" Markstrom and Tanev into discounted deals.

They desperately tried to sign Markstrom and offered him a 5-year deal. This clearly isn't true at all.

 

[4Twenty]

Eriksson is dead cap.
Baertschi is dead cap.
The ghost of Sam Gagner is dead cap.

Stating the dead cap has little effect is beyond ludicrous.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

They desperately tried to sign Markstrom and offered him a 5-year deal. This clearly isn't true at all.

Yes, without expansion draft protection. A small detail that shouldn't bother your narrative.

 

[MS]

Yes, without expansion draft protection. A small detail that shouldn't bother your narrative.

If Markstrom would have had an elite season, they would have protected him. If he would have had a poor season, Seattle would never have taken him. It really doesn't make much difference to the fact that their preferred option was to commit long-term to Markstrom.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

If Markstrom would have had an elite season, they would have protected him. If he would have had a poor season, Seattle would never have taken him. It really doesn't make much difference to the fact that their preferred option was to commit long-term to Markstrom.

Nope their preferred option was to extend their evaluation window for Demko and Markstrom without having to commit 100% to one or the other. Markstrom wanted a 100% committment with an NMC, which he got from Calgary. You still haven't said if you would have signed Markstrom to the contract he got from Calgary.

 

[4Twenty]

“Most of the dead cap goes in 2 years.....” is the exact same fallacy as those who projected 40-50 million dollars in cap space for the 2020 offseason in 2018 after signing those dreadful deals to 4th liners.

 

[timw33]

extend their evaluation window for Demko

I love to carefully evaluate goalies until they hit UFA status.

 

[timw33]

“Most of the dead cap goes in 2 years.....” is the exact same fallacy as those who projected 40-50 million dollars in cap space for the 2020 offseason in 2018 after signing those dreadful deals to 4th liners.

Dude it's nuts, we have $81.5MM in cap space for 2025-26, why are people getting so mad?

 

[Egghead1999]

Markstrom with that beauty .789 percentage. That's a premium performance for 6 million.

When five or six goals bounced off from your own defence in a roll, it was hard to be good.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Most of that "dead cap" with its eternally revolving cast of characters--was Pearson dead cap last season? Sutter last night? Beagle so far this season?--is coming off the books in a year or two and has little influence on the Markstrom and Tanev deals. Those deals would not have restricted the Canucks in any way from signing Pettersson or Hughes. The Canucks added 10 million in contacts this summer, for this year and next, which could have gone to Markstrom and Tanev. The Canucks simply made an evaluation, favoring Schmidt over Tanev, and Demko's prime as aligning better with our young core than Markstrom's. So again, you're just deflecting from the question, just like those who argue they would have "super negotiated" Markstrom and Tanev into discounted deals. But it is good information that people refuse to answer the question directly, suggesting fear that Benning's evaluation will be proved correct in time.

Are you forgetting that Petterson/Hughes will need new contract this coming off season? That alone could add anywhere from $12-18m to the cap depending on if they are bridged or sign to long term. The contracts coming off the books (without replacements) will barely cover for those. You think our cap situation has little influence to re-signing Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli? You really have no clue how the cap works then.
I have answered that question twice in the last 24 hours. The fact that you are incapable of processing a 2-step statement doesn't mean "people refuse to answer." Yeah Benning has sure proven to be correct over the last 7 years, the team's record, the contracts, the cap management, the front office hires/fires. All signs point to Benning's evaluation proven correct.

 

[DustyMartellaughs]

Rutherford steps down as Pens GM due to personal reasons.

 

[Fatass]

Are you forgetting that Petterson/Hughes will need new contract this coming off season? That alone could add anywhere from $12-18m to the cap depending on if they are bridged or sign to long term. The contracts coming off the books (without replacements) will barely cover for those. You think our cap situation has little influence to re-signing Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli? You really have no clue how the cap works then.
I have answered that question twice in the last 24 hours. The fact that you are incapable of processing a 2-step statement doesn't mean "people refuse to answer." Yeah Benning has sure proven to be correct over the last 7 years, the team's record, the contracts, the cap management, the front office hires/fires. All signs point to Benning's evaluation proven correct.

As fans we’re frustrated losing Marky, Tanev, and Tofu. From Miller’s comments (I think Bo said something too) it sure sounds like the players are frustrated too. And that’s what truly matters.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

Are you forgetting that Petterson/Hughes will need new contract this coming off season? That alone could add anywhere from $12-18m to the cap depending on if they are bridged or sign to long term. The contracts coming off the books (without replacements) will barely cover for those. You think our cap situation has little influence to re-signing Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli? You really have no clue how the cap works then.

I'll try putting it simply for you.

1. The Canucks added 10 million in cap for this season and next with Schmidt, Holtby.

2. They could have used that cap space to keep Markstrom and Tanev/Toffoli.

3. Cap space was not the main reason why they let Markstrom and Tanev go, but rather concerns about handing these players long-term deals, along with losing Demko.

4. There is absolutely no lack of cap space for signing Pettersson and Hughes. In fact, stripping the roster slightly and exposing the deficiencies in their games that still need to be ironed out could be very helpful for our long-term contract situation. Compare to the Leafs signing Marner after Tavares bumped him up to a career year.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

As fans we’re frustrated losing Marky, Tanev, and Tofu. From Miller’s comments (I think Bo said something too) it sure sounds like the players are frustrated too. And that’s what truly matters.

I just want to expand on this a little bit. I'm frustrated at the circumstances that led to us losing Markstrom, Tanev and Toffoli, more than the fact that we lost them. I can understand losing them due to their age and/or injury history, had we have the assets, cap space and foresight to replace them with equal or superior players. I am not happy that we lost them due to $25m tied up in dead cap on barely NHL level players, while not replacing them adequately in the lineup, which led to the team taking a step back, when they should be moving into the "competing" stage.
It feels like a lifetime ago now, but it was only 2 years ago when some posters were telling us that "cap space don't matter" when we signed Beagle/Roussel/Schaller, then again when we signed Myers in 2019. If only there were people that can look slightly ahead and tell us that, "wait, cap space DOES matter, you need it to sign your own good players!"

 

[4Twenty]

Cap space is the main reason they couldn't add anything to their group without losing 4 key pieces.

 

[Vector]

Rutherford steps down as Pens GM due to personal reasons.

Probably related to this.

A lawsuit brought against the Pittsburgh Penguins accuses the team’s former American Hockey League head coach of sexually assaulting an assistant coach’s wife during a team road trip in 2018.
The civil suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania last month by Erin and Jarrod Skalde, a former assistant coach of the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins, against the organization and former WBS head coach Clark Donatelli.
The suit also alleges that former Penguins assistant general manager Bill Guerin — currently the general manager of the Minnesota Wild — told Jarrod Skalde to keep quiet about the incident after Skalde informed him of what happened.