Benning on Halford & Brough (02/01/19)

[RandV]

The people who still think this team is "at least 4/5 years away from being a good team" and that we still need to mercilessly sell our assets or whatever are out of touch with the impact Pettersson/Boeser/Horvat will have on this team in the future.

I agree that at this point the idea of "mercilessly" selling isn't necessarily the way to go (and I never thought it was), but I also take issue with the latter part of the statement.

The impact those 3 will have on the team in the future? Horvat is leading the team in icetime with hard minutes and sub par linemates yet is on pace for 66 points. Boeser and Pettersson have missed a few games each, but averaged to an 82 game season Boeser is scoring at a 35-39-74 and Pettersson a 47-45-92 pace. And this is all happening while 2/3 are still on their ELC's.

The future is only going to get harder because very soon these 3 will be costing us over $20M in cap and it won't be quite so easy to add players anymore. Not that this is a bad thing if the team is being managed well, but that's sort of the crux of this matter.

 

[Peter10]

Salo was 33 in 2007

And Edler was 23 in 2007.

Do you really think that has any relevance right now? You are talking about 12 years ago while currently the NHL displays young talent at its finest. The majority of the high end players are in their early to mid 20s now and your argument is that 12 years ago there was a 33 year old who managed to get several more good years out of his career?

 

[Horse McHindu]

If the Canucks move on from Edler, we won’t have a top pairing LD. This hurts Hutton, a developing Hughes, Juolevi, and in effect our entire defensive core, and in effect our goaltending which includes that developing Demko.

Why people don’t understand this very simple concept is way beyond me.

 

[Peter10]

If the Canucks move on from Edler, we won’t have a top pairing LD. This hurts Hutton, a developing Hughes, Juolevi, and in effect our entire defensive core, and in effect our goaltending which includes that developing Demko.

Why people don’t understand this very simple concept is way beyond me.

Maybe because those people would have expected Benning to bring in at least one NHL defenseman to take over from Edler at this point. In five f'ing years he only managed to get Stecher in, everyone else is a pure failure. So because Benning did an aweful job, he has no other choice but to re-sign Edler. If Benning was any good, re-inforcements would have been in place and dealing Edler would have been a rather easy task.

 

[Pip]

I agree that at this point the idea of "mercilessly" selling isn't necessarily the way to go (and I never thought it was), but I also take issue with the latter part of the statement.

The impact those 3 will have on the team in the future? Horvat is leading the team in icetime with hard minutes and sub par linemates yet is on pace for 66 points. Boeser and Pettersson have missed a few games each, but averaged to an 82 game season Boeser is scoring at a 35-39-74 and Pettersson a 47-45-92 pace. And this is all happening while 2/3 are still on their ELC's.

The future is only going to get harder because very soon these 3 will be costing us over $20M in cap and it won't be quite so easy to add players anymore. Not that this is a bad thing if the team is being managed well, but that's sort of the crux of this matter.

No kidding. The “kids” are doing as good as you can reasonably expect and there’s no guarantee that they are only going to get better and yet we still aren’t a playoff team. The problem is the surrounding cast and defense. Maybe Hughes comes in and dominates but if he doesn’t then we’re still a ways away. It’s why drafting it’s the end all be all, a GM needs to be skilled in pro scouting, roster construction, trading, and cap management or all that young talent goes to waste.

 

[WestCoast CyberG]

By any chance are you familiar with how many NTCs Benning's handed out? Go ahead and look that up. We'll wait.

OK, you go ahead and wait...the important part that you obviously missed is Edler’s contract, the one we are discussing, was signed by Gillis who the earlier poster suggested would handle this situation better than Benning. Just thought it was ironic given the situation. The guy who signed the NTC in the first place putting the Canucks in a worse position is also the one who would deal with it better?...laughable! LOL

 

[WestCoast CyberG]

when you look where the team is at and where are defensive depth is, retaining him is the logical move.

Absolutely...unless posters can start suggesting exactly what assets we should expect to make our team better it makes no sense moving Edler given your assessment above.

 

[Ori]

Do we need to move anyone at TDL?
We need a spot for Quinn Hughes next training camp, but I doubt he is fully developed yet - unless we are doing a Buffalo who use their young players too early.

2018-19

Univ. of Michigan

NCAA

21

3

20

23

14

-6

|

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

USA U20 “A”

WJC-20

7

0

2

2

2

3

|

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Horse McHindu]

Maybe because those people would have expected Benning to bring in at least one NHL defenseman to take over from Edler at this point. In five f'ing years he only managed to get Stecher in, everyone else is a pure failure. So because Benning did an aweful job, he has no other choice but to re-sign Edler. If Benning was any good, re-inforcements would have been in place and dealing Edler would have been a rather easy task.

You make a fair point, but honestly - what defensemen were out there that could have been had?

1) Trading for a Top pairing defenseman would likely involve moving a 1st round pick at minimum (1st round pick+). As we know, the Canucks made an inquiry about Subbann a few years ago but the asking price was enormous.

2) UFA. Who could have been via UFA that was a top pairing guy. It’s one thing to say, “oh - let’s go get that guy!” While said guy has no interest in playing here (barring an extreme overpayment). Think a guy like John Carlson would have signed here at fair market value? What about Erik Karlsson in this off season? If you sign one of these guys at a bloated AAV, then how does this affect our ability to reup our young RFA core players to long term cap friendly deals?

3) Drafting: I’ll admit that the Canucks should have taken the obvious pick here (Matthew Tkachuk) in 2016, but Benning did try and address the defense here. Outside of this error however, Benning seems to have some good stuff coming up in the pipeline (Hughes, followed by some possibles in Chatfield, Mcenemy, Woo, Rathbone, etc,). We also have Tryamkin (Benning draftee) who will likely come back to us.

Benning’s only play:

Given how difficult it is to....

1). Trade for top 3 caliber d-men
2) Sign Top dmen without destroying one’s long term cap
3) drafting good dmen

Benning’s only real play here was to invest in talented reclamation projects that hadn’t quite panned out. Your Sbisa’s, Gudbranson’s, Pedan’s, etc. unfortunately, things didn’t go as planned here.

On the flip side, it was Gillis’ drafting team (2008-2013) that pretty much left our current regime with ZERO defensive prospects outside of Hutton. Benning had to adjust as a result.

 

[pgj98m3]

You make a fair point, but honestly - what defensemen were out there that could have been had?

1) Trading for a Top pairing defenseman would likely involve moving a 1st round pick at minimum (1st round pick+). As we know, the Canucks made an inquiry about Subbann a few years ago but the asking price was enormous.

2) UFA. Who could have been via UFA that was a top pairing guy. It’s one thing to say, “oh - let’s go get that guy!” While said guy has no interest in playing here (barring an extreme overpayment). Think a guy like John Carlson would have signed here at fair market value? What about Erik Karlsson in this off season? If you sign one of these guys at a bloated AAV, then how does this affect our ability to reup our young RFA core players to long term cap friendly deals?

3) Drafting: I’ll admit that the Canucks should have taken the obvious pick here (Matthew Tkachuk) in 2016, but Benning did try and address the defense here. Outside of this error however, Benning seems to have some good stuff coming up in the pipeline (Hughes, followed by some possibles in Chatfield, Mcenemy, Woo, Rathbone, etc,). We also have Tryamkin (Benning draftee) who will likely come back to us.

Benning’s only play:

Given how difficult it is to....

1). Trade for top 3 caliber d-men
2) Sign Top dmen without destroying one’s long term cap
3) drafting good dmen

Benning’s only real play here was to invest in talented reclamation projects that hadn’t quite panned out. Your Sbisa’s, Gudbranson’s, Pedan’s, etc. unfortunately, things didn’t go as planned here.

On the flip side, it was Gillis’ drafting team (2008-2013) that pretty much left our current regime with ZERO defensive prospects outside of Hutton. Benning had to adjust as a result.

He’s had 5 years...enough with blaming Gillis. It’s time to move on from both.

 

[member 290103]

Salo was 33 in 2007

Edler has never been as good as Salo, imo.

 

[pgj98m3]

If the Canucks move on from Edler, we won’t have a top pairing LD. This hurts Hutton, a developing Hughes, Juolevi, and in effect our entire defensive core, and in effect our goaltending which includes that developing Demko.

Why people don’t understand this very simple concept is way beyond me.

But when Horvat had to step up he did...have some faith.

 

[Horse McHindu]

He’s had 5 years...enough with blaming Gillis. It’s time to move on from both.

It’s not about the time though. It’s about recognizing as to how difficult it is to

1) Trade for a Top 3 caliber defenseman
2) Sign a Top 3 caliber UFA defenseman without destroying your team cap in the long term (cup contending teams should really be the only teams doing this).

Seriously - in the last how many years, how many top caliber defensemen have been traded for a relatively low price? The only guy I can really think of is Ryan McDonaugh to Tampa (ie genius Yzerman fleecing someone).

Other than that though, all top caliber dmen were either

-traded for a premium price
-signed for huge money.

There’s just no way the Canucks had the assets to make that kind of trade. They inquired about Subbann a few years ago but we all know what the asking price was.

But seriously - around the league - how many times do you see young top pairing dmen getting traded? And even if you do, at what cost?

I think it’s ridiculous to pin Benning on the fact that he wasn’t able to acquire top young dmen. The bigger blame should be on the Gillis regime for not drafting and developing atleast 1-2 top notch D. Thankfully, Benning seems to have struck gold with Hughes.

 

[pgj98m3]

It’s not about the time though. It’s about recognizing as to how difficult it is to

1) Trade for a Top 3 caliber defenseman
2) Sign a Top 3 caliber UFA defenseman without destroying your team cap in the long term (cup contending teams should really be the only teams doing this).

Seriously - in the last how many years, how many top caliber defensemen have been traded for a relatively low price? The only guy I can really think of is Ryan McDonaugh to Tampa (ie genius Yzerman fleecing someone).

Other than that though, all top caliber dmen were either

-traded for a premium price
-signed for huge money.

There’s just no way the Canucks had the assets to make that kind of trade. They inquired about Subbann a few years ago but we all know what the asking price was.

But seriously - around the league - how many times do you see young top pairing dmen getting traded? And even if you do, at what cost?

No. Is about the time. How long do you give Benning? I, for one, have lost patience.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

Do we need to move anyone at TDL?
We need a spot for Quinn Hughes next training camp, but I doubt he is fully developed yet - unless we are doing a Buffalo who use their young players too early.

2018-19

Univ. of Michigan

NCAA

21

3

20

23

14

-6

|

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

USA U20 “A”

WJC-20

7

0

2

2

2

3

|

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Pre-playoffs is the best time to move Guddy. A guy can dream.

 

[Horse McHindu]

But when Horvat had to step up he did...have some faith.

Although Horvat wasn’t quite ready for that level of responsibility after the 2015 playoffs, he was quite close. There was risk obviously invoked when Sutter went down with injury, but thankfully, Horvat was able to step up for the most part. There were some growing pains there but it wasn’t too bad.

Hutton on the other hand, shouldn’t be anywhere near close to being your top pairing guy. Hughes will be a top pairing guy one day, but you’d be taking a risk by putting him in that spot right from the get go. If I had to guess, the Canucks will bring Hughes up at the end of the season and burn a year off his ELC just to see how close he really is. If Hughes appears to be ready to top pairing duty *already*, then I think Nucks might let Edler wall and simply use that money for help up front.

 

[Hit the post]

It’s not about the time though. It’s about recognizing as to how difficult it is to

1) Trade for a Top 3 caliber defenseman

Other than that though, all top caliber dmen were either

-traded for a premium price
-signed for huge money.

I think it’s ridiculous to pin Benning on the fact that he wasn’t able to acquire top young dmem

Trade: Ehrhoff (cost us crap prospects)
Free agent signed for low money: Tanev. (and he’s still under 30 -more than 4 years after Gillis got fired)
Free agent signed for fair value: Hamhuis

Heck right now, Gillis drafted Hutton is still right now better than any D Elmer has acquired.

 

[F A N]

You make a fair point, but honestly - what defensemen were out there that could have been had?

...

Benning’s only play:

Given how difficult it is to....

1). Trade for top 3 caliber d-men
2) Sign Top dmen without destroying one’s long term cap
3) drafting good dmen

Benning’s only real play here was to invest in talented reclamation projects that hadn’t quite panned out. Your Sbisa’s, Gudbranson’s, Pedan’s, etc. unfortunately, things didn’t go as planned here.

On the flip side, it was Gillis’ drafting team (2008-2013) that pretty much left our current regime with ZERO defensive prospects outside of Hutton. Benning had to adjust as a result.

Yep. There's no denying that Benning's acquisitions on D haven't panned out without the exception of Stecher. There's also no denying that Gillis did a great job of retooling the D without the draft delivering help. The Ehrhoff trade was an amazing trade and Hamhuis was a great signing as was Tanev. But let's face it, the Canucks lucked out with the Hamhuis signing as he could have easily signed with the Penguins or Flyers. The Ballard trade was a costly miss.

The market for UFA Dmen really hasn't been good. You have top guys like Yandle who simply wasn't coming here. Even a guy like Demers didn't want to come here. A high price was charged for established top 4 Dmen. Even the McDonagh trade you consider a steal was a high price to pay for a then 29 year old with one year left on his contract. And to put things into perspective, 3 summers ago, Hamhuis was one of the best Dmen on the market and this year Edler would be if he gets there.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

OK, you go ahead and wait...the important part that you obviously missed is Edler’s contract, the one we are discussing, was signed by Gillis who the earlier poster suggested would handle this situation better than Benning. Just thought it was ironic given the situation. The guy who signed the NTC in the first place putting the Canucks in a worse position is also the one who would deal with it better?...laughable! LOL

What the f*** are you even talking about? Edler is still the best dman the Canucks have had since Gillis left. Have the Canucks been in a better situation since Gillis left? Uh...hello?

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Those NTC's were also the reason Gillis could ice the dominate team that won the Presidents trophy and got us just about as close to a cup as you can get.

 

[F A N]

Those NTC's were also the reason Gillis could ice the dominate team that won the Presidents trophy and got us just about as close to a cup as you can get.

Not really. The 2010-2011 team that went to the Cup finals didn't really have a lot of players with NTCs. There's no issue with giving the Sedins, Luongo, and Hamhuis NMCs/NTCs or partial NTCs to Malhotra. The NTCs came after the Cup run and let's face it, most of the contracts handed after the 2010-2011 season where Gillis threw in some sort of NTC turned out to be bad contracts in hindsight.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Not really. The 2010-2011 team that went to the Cup finals didn't really have a lot of players with NTCs. There's no issue with giving the Sedins, Luongo, and Hamhuis NMCs/NTCs or partial NTCs to Malhotra. The NTCs came after the Cup run and let's face it, most of the contracts handed after the 2010-2011 season where Gillis threw in some sort of NTC turned out to be bad contracts in hindsight.

Not like those contracts Benning has handed out since 2014. Those are going to be great.

 

[elitepete]

If the Canucks move on from Edler, we won’t have a top pairing LD. This hurts Hutton, a developing Hughes, Juolevi, and in effect our entire defensive core, and in effect our goaltending which includes that developing Demko.

Why people don’t understand this very simple concept is way beyond me.

Signing Edler to a bad contract hurts us even more.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Signing Edler to a bad contract hurts us even more.

I agree that a 4 year deal would be ill advised, but I’d be willing potentially to risk one bad year of Edler during his 3rd year.

As a result, I think a 3 year deal allows us to....

1) Give more than enough time for Hughes and Juolevi to grow and develop

2) still put the Canucks in an overall position where they won’t have much long term cap hindrances (in terms of reupping our RFA’s and in terms of letting other guys such as Sutter, Gudbranson, Gagner, Eriksson get off the books).

You can’t put your young players and prospects in a position to fail during a rebuild. With Edler gone, the pressure on guys like Hutton, Hughes, Juolevi, and Demko will increase ten fold.

 

[elitepete]

I agree that a 4 year deal would be ill advised, but I’d be willing potentially risk one bad year of Edler during his 3rd year.

As a result, I think a 3 year deal allows us to....

1) Give more than enough time for Hughes and Juolevi to grow and develop

2) still put the Canucks in an overall position where they won’t have much long term cap hindrances (in terms of reupping our RFA’s and in terms of letting other guys such as Sutter, Gudbranson, Gagner, Eriksson get off the books).

I’d be ok with a 3 year deal if the 3rd year is not lockout protected and the cap hit is low.