2020/2021 Around the League Thread

[sandwichbird2023]

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.

Are you seriously looking at just ONE year when evaluating the merit of a MULTI years extension?
If you think theres no lack of cap space for Petterson and Hughes next year, here is a link to capfriendly Vancouver Canucks - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps. Fill out the roster and put down what you think Petterson and Hughes deserve, as well as replacing all the UFAs/RFAs. I want to see what kind of team we can look forward to next year.

**I didn't realize this is the "around the league" thread, can a mod move these posts into the "management discussion" thread please? Thanks. Sorry for going way off topic.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

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."

You do realize they signed Holtby to a 5 million plus contract Markstrom wanted less than 1 million more. The issue was the 6 years and losing Demko in expansion draft. So the cap had little to do with losing Markstrom. I think it cost team Toffoli and other top forward options, but not Markstrom, or Tanev. Team actually made good decisions for long term this off season. Really Roussel, Myers, Ferlund do not bother me. They were attempting to protect young players and establish more physicality. Do you really think these moves cost us a cup this year? Toffoli and a couple other UFA's were going to make us favorites? We would be in better shape but our window is not closed just delayed.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

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

Are you seriously looking at just ONE year when evaluating the merit of a MULTI years extension?

This ends our discussion, as you appear simply unable to read and thus unable to engage in a dialogue. Hopefully there are others who can try to make your point more convincingly than you have.

 

[Fatass]

You do realize they signed Holtby to a 5 million plus contract Markstrom wanted less than 1 million more. The issue was the 6 years and losing Demko in expansion draft. So the cap had little to do with losing Markstrom. I think it cost team Toffoli and other top forward options, but not Markstrom, or Tanev. Team actually made good decisions for long term this off season. Really Roussel, Myers, Ferlund do not bother me. They were attempting to protect young players and establish more physicality. Do you really think these moves cost us a cup this year? Toffoli and a couple other UFA's were going to make us favorites? We would be in better shape but our window is not closed just delayed.

You think the players left want to “delay” winning, because I’m pretty sure they don’t.

 

[MS]

Nope their preferred option was to extend their evaluation window for Demko and Markstrom without having to commit 100% to one or the other.

1) This is an entirely different thing from what you originally claimed.

2) Offering Markstrom a 5 year/$30 million deal is definitely 'committing' to him.

3) The expansion draft thing is a mirage. How many 4+ year contracts to guys in their 30s did Vegas take on, again? If they make that 5 year commitment, odds are overwhelming they'll be keeping him whether they want to or not.

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.

1) Again, your question involves the Ehrhoff Fallacy, where you're acting like the contract the player got later after hitting the open market is what we would have had to give him in a differently-handled negotiation months earlier.

2) I've answered this question repeatedly. Given how badly the team's cap situation had been bungled, it would have been difficult to take on the risk of another high-value contract to a player in his 30s, because if Markstrom falls off in 22-23 or whatever there will be no cap space to save the situation with a different option. Plus, with our extremely limited prospect pool right now, we're going to have to replace guys like Edler and Pearson externally, likely in the UFA markets on contract we don't like. However, if the team's cap situation had been handled correctly and we had the large amount of cap space we should have, absolutely that would be a player you take that risk on.

 

[4Twenty]

If the moves don't cost you the cup they still matter. Such lazy excuses for goodness sake, it's getting beyond sad.

7 seasons in to the mans tenure and they're rebooting when they just moved 1st and 2nd round picks the season prior. It's wild.

Colorado might not win the cup, but they made moves to move towards that target as have many other clubs. The Canucks after a period being one of the very worst teams in the league is rebooting a shortcut ridden, pandemic led playoff appearance.

Of course Myers, Beagle, Roussel and the like don't bother some.....wow

 

[Svencouver]

2) Offering Markstrom a 5 year/$30 million deal is definitely 'committing' to him.

not if the point of contention was the NMC

 

[MS]

If the moves don't cost you the cup they still matter. Such lazy excuses for goodness sake, it's getting beyond sad.

7 seasons in to the mans tenure and they're rebooting when they just moved 1st and 2nd round picks the season prior. It's wild.

Colorado might not win the cup, but they made moves to move towards that target as have many other clubs. The Canucks after a period being one of the very worst teams in the league is rebooting a shortcut ridden, pandemic led playoff appearance.

Of course Myers, Beagle, Roussel and the like don't bother some.....wow

It simply boggles the mind how anyone could defend the $18 million and 18 years Myers/Ferland/Roussel/Beagle contracts of the past two years and then praise Benning for not giving an extension to Jacob Markstrom, who contributes twice as much to the team as all of those players combined.

 

[Bad Goalie]

Probably related to this.

Jarrod Skalde. There's a familiar name to Utica fans. He basically started his pro career with the Utica Devils in 1991-92 and 1992-93. He had 2 short stops in New Jersey totaling 26 games in those 2 seasons. He had 100 points in the 121 games he played in those 2 seasons. Not surprising he was a fan favorite.

 

[canuckking1]

Not surprised that Hanafin is having the best season of his career analytically playing with Tanev. The guy was getting super underrated here when people were comparing him to Hamonic.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Jarrod Skalde. There's a familiar name to Utica fans. He basically started his pro career with the Utica Devils in 1991-92 and 1992-93. He had 2 short stops in New Jersey totaling 26 games in those 2 seasons.

i remember this guy. upper deck told me he was going to be a star rookie in bure's rookie year

actually, i remember clark donatelli too. captain of the 1992 us olympic team.

 

[MS]

not if the point of contention was the NMC

I mean, no matter how much you commit to someone, there is always a way to commit to them more. That doesn't mean that the offer they made wasn't a major commitment. And the initial claim by the poster was that they didn't commit to Markstrom because they thought Demko fit the core better. And again, when you offer 5 years/$30 million with an NTC to Markstrom, it isn't because you prefer Demko.

And also again, the expansion draft is a bit of a red herring. If Markstrom was again a top-5 goalie in 20-21 playing the lion's share of our games ... no way would he be exposed. And if he's outplayed by Demko and loses his #1 spot ... no way Seattle would claim him. If we give Markstrom that contract, he's overwhelmingly likely to be here the full 5 years, NMC or not.

 

[Bad Goalie]

Not surprised that Hanafin is having the best season of his career analytically playing with Tanev. The guy was getting super underrated here when people were comparing him to Hamonic.

Hanafin this season and Hughes last season. Hughes is still putting up points, but I didn't see the same kind of questions about his defensive play when Tanev was his partner vs the guys he has been paired with this season who are no where near the defensive/cover level of Tanev. Hanafin has found the same jewel.

 

[canuckking1]

So who is HFcanucks cheering for in the Canadian division if the Canucks don't make it?

Here's how I would go


Jets

Medium gap

Habs

Large gap

Flames

even bigger gap

Oilers

ginormous gap

Leafs

 

[MS]

So who is HFcanucks cheering for in the Canadian division if the Canucks don't make it?

Here's how I would go


Jets

Medium gap

Habs

Large gap

Flames

even bigger gap

Oilers

ginormous gap

Leafs

Ouch to not even listing the Senators.

Same list for me.

 

[canuckking1]

Ouch to not even listing the Senators.

Same list for me.

If by some miracle they make it I'd list them first.

 

[Fatass]

So who is HFcanucks cheering for in the Canadian division if the Canucks don't make it?

Here's how I would go


Jets

Medium gap

Habs

Large gap

Flames

even bigger gap

Oilers

ginormous gap

Leafs

Me too, but I’d swap the Flames and the Oilers.

 

[MS]

Me too, but I’d swap the Flames and the Oilers.

I definitely prefer the Flames to the Oilers. Their fans aren't dicks to the same extent, they've actually gone about competing in an honourable way, and their team is now filled with likeable ex-Canucks.

I still hate them, but at least I can respect them. Oilers not so much.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

1) This is an entirely different thing from what you originally claimed.

2) Offering Markstrom a 5 year/$30 million deal is definitely 'committing' to him.

3) The expansion draft thing is a mirage. How many 4+ year contracts to guys in their 30s did Vegas take on, again? If they make that 5 year commitment, odds are overwhelming they'll be keeping him whether they want to or not.

1) Again, your question involves the Ehrhoff Fallacy, where you're acting like the contract the player got later after hitting the open market is what we would have had to give him in a differently-handled negotiation months earlier.

2) I've answered this question repeatedly. Given how badly the team's cap situation had been bungled, it would have been difficult to take on the risk of another high-value contract to a player in his 30s, because if Markstrom falls off in 22-23 or whatever there will be no cap space to save the situation with a different option. Plus, with our extremely limited prospect pool right now, we're going to have to replace guys like Edler and Pearson externally, likely in the UFA markets on contract we don't like. However, if the team's cap situation had been handled correctly and we had the large amount of cap space we should have, absolutely that would be a player you take that risk on.

I have not seen anywhere that the Canucks offered Markstrom 5 years/$30 million with an NTC. Link?

What you're simply not grasping is that without an NMC, Markstrom could be exposed in the expansion draft. It doesn't really matter if Seattle would take him or not; the important thing is Demko could be protected. The Canucks have a lot of faith in Demko, and we'll see if that faith gets rewarded in terms of when he is able to surpass Markstrom in ability.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about with the argument: "it would have been difficult to take on the risk of another high-value contract to a player in his 30s." The only players the Canucks have signed long-term into their 30s currently are Schmidt and Myers. These players and the 10% of the cap they take up prevented the Canucks from extending Markstrom?

It's good to see though that you admit you wouldn't have signed Markstrom to that deal. I think there are many others like you who wouldn't have, yet still complain that Benning didn't. It doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[4Twenty]

Demko is going to be ufa by the time they’ve had a good enough look at him.

Coming up on 8 drafts ago.

 

[Josepho]

f*** all of the other canadian teams, but especially the leafs and oilers.

 

[Bad Goalie]

So who is HFcanucks cheering for in the Canadian division if the Canucks don't make it?

Here's how I would go


Jets

Medium gap

Habs

Large gap

Flames

even bigger gap

Oilers

ginormous gap

Leafs

It would be

Jets
Leafs
Flames

for me.
I can't hate the Leafs like all of you Canadian chaps. My schoolboy days growing up in Rochester, NY in the 60's were spent rooting for my hometown Rochester Americans, who won 3 Calder Cups and lost out in the finals shooting for 1 more. They were the farm team of the Toronto Maple Leafs who during that same time span won 4 Stanley Cups and were runnerup to 1 more. Many of the players on both teams would be winners on 1 cup or the other and some on both over that time span. I can't separate myself from those wonderful memories to all of a sudden hate them because my adult hometown of Utica plays against the Amerks and Utica's parent plays against the Leafs.

Our histories are different. I still root for the Comets over Rochester and the Canucks over the Leafs, but if either of my current teams is not in contention at the end, I will pull for my boyhood favorites.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

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



This ends our discussion

Thank god!

as you appear simply unable to read and thus unable to engage in a dialogue. Hopefully there are others who can try to make your point more convincingly than you have.

Seems like you are the one that has numerous posters here trying to, REPEATEDLY, explain to you the workings of the cap and the consequences of squandering it, how it relates to the Canucks and how it handcuffed them. But ok, I'm the one unable to read. Whatever let you sleep better at night.
In the meantime our favorite team made the playoff twice in 7 years and is taking one step forward, two steps back, and a portion of the fanbase thinks things are going fine and the GM is doing a good job.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I have not seen anywhere that the Canucks offered Markstrom 5 years/$30 million with an NTC. Link?

What you're simply not grasping is that without an NMC, Markstrom could be exposed in the expansion draft. It doesn't really matter if Seattle would take him or not; the important thing is Demko could be protected. The Canucks have a lot of faith in Demko, and we'll see if that faith gets rewarded in terms of when he is able to surpass Markstrom in ability.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about with the argument: "it would have been difficult to take on the risk of another high-value contract to a player in his 30s." The only players the Canucks have signed long-term into their 30s currently are Schmidt and Myers. These players and the 10% of the cap they take up prevented the Canucks from extending Markstrom?

It's good to see though that you admit you wouldn't have signed Markstrom to that deal. I think there are many others like you who wouldn't have, yet still complain that Benning didn't. It doesn't make much sense to me.

The last offer the Canucks made Markstrom was 5.5M x 5 years with no NMC..($27.5M).

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]