Brandon "Meat & Butter" Sutter

[DanCloutiersFiveHole]

No, to build a winning team you need to...build a winning team. You find the right mix of players that complement one another. Think Malhotra in 2011. That was a UFA signing but you get the idea.

Which is distinct from maximizing your assets. Here's another (admittedly simple) example.

Your team has a surplus of LH defenceman. Let's say random team has too many defenceman - they have another lefty who costs a 2nd round pick. They have a righty who costs two 2nd round picks, but is an ideal fit for the team - this player balances out the pairings beautifully and complements two of the LH shots nicely in terms of playing style. Both players are about equal in skill level, salary, etc.

According to you, and many others on here, the team should target the lefty because of 'maximizing assets, cost acquisition, etc'. That gives us an extra 2nd, sure. In terms of building the best team however it's obvious that the RH shot is a better fit. More expensive, sure, but he makes the team better.

If maximizing assets were how to build a winning team the best trading GM's would build the best teams. That simply is not the case.

As it currently stands, this team is very far away from being a cup contender. The kind of move you are talking about is a move that pushes you over the top. The Canucks are not a team with lots of high value assets. I liked what Buffalo did last year WRT trades because they had assets to spare and so they overspent a bit and lost some value but in the end they will probably be better for it. There are only so many roster spots that you can fill with young players.
We are not a team with that luxury. We don't have an abundance of excellent prospects, despite the good fortune of having several young players on the cusp of NHL success (relative to their experience level) this season. We don't even have a huge number of tradeable assets available, as so many of our players are either on the wrong side of 30, have hefty contracts, or both.
Think of fuel consumption on a long distance race as an analogy. You start out on your journey with just one tank of gas. If you gun it in front of the other guy right of the line then sure you may look better to begin with, but there's no certainty that you even make it to the finish line. But if you drive conservatively then whatever you have left when you're guaranteed to make it to the end you can use to push you out in front.
We are still pretty early in this reboot or whatever it is, so we need to be managing assets shrewdly in order to build a surplus that can be exploited when we know what we have.

 

[Diamonddog01]

As it currently stands, this team is very far away from being a cup contender. The kind of move you are talking about is a move that pushes you over the top. The Canucks are not a team with lots of high value assets. I liked what Buffalo did last year WRT trades because they had assets to spare and so they overspent a bit and lost some value but in the end they will probably be better for it. There are only so many roster spots that you can fill with young players.
We are not a team with that luxury. We don't have an abundance of excellent prospects, despite the good fortune of having several young players on the cusp of NHL success (relative to their experience level) this season. We don't even have a huge number of tradeable assets available, as so many of our players are either on the wrong side of 30, have hefty contracts, or both.
Think of fuel consumption on a long distance race as an analogy. You start out on your journey with just one tank of gas. If you gun it in front of the other guy right of the line then sure you may look better to begin with, but there's no certainty that you even make it to the finish line. But if you drive conservatively then whatever you have left when you're guaranteed to make it to the end you can use to push you out in front.
We are still pretty early in this reboot or whatever it is, so we need to be managing assets shrewdly in order to build a surplus that can be exploited when we know what we have.

I disagree with this type of thinking and weird that you bring up an example in Buffalo that directly contradicts your point of view. It doesn't matter where you are on the basement dweller to contender spectrum - the objective is always to improve, to get better. You don't do that by hoarding assets. You do that by improving. Sometimes having a surplus of assets, certain type of players, picks or prospects makes it easier to improve, but merely collecting those assets isn't the point.

It seems as though you are missing the forest for the trees.

 

[DanCloutiersFiveHole]

I disagree with this type of thinking and weird that you bring up an example in Buffalo that directly contradicts your point of view. It doesn't matter where you are on the basement dweller to contender spectrum - the objective is always to improve, to get better. You don't do that by hoarding assets. You do that by improving. Sometimes having a surplus of assets, certain type of players, picks or prospects makes it easier to improve, but merely collecting those assets isn't the point.

It seems as though you are missing the forest for the trees.

It isn't contradictory at all, and you've missed the point in its entirety. There's a big difference between overspending from a position of strength and overspending from a position of weakness. Of course collecting assets isn't the point. You're collecting them so that you can build a winning team and when the time comes and you have the basic structure of that team then you can go out and get Sutters and Dorsetts if that's what you think is going to put you over the top based on what you have identified as an area of weakness. You don't go out and get them before you even have a basic skeleton of the team that you want to build. How do we know that Sutter will mesh with the future core when we don't even have it yet? You're putting the cart before the horse.
EDIT:
If this was a simple UFA signing for market value then it wouldn't be of any consequence. But you are arguing that the supposed "fit" justifies the excess cost WRT both cap and asset management. We also aren't talking about hoarding assets but simply not bleeding assets like they can be reproduced from thin air

 

[Diamonddog01]

It isn't contradictory at all, and you've missed the point in its entirety. There's a big difference between overspending from a position of strength and overspending from a position of weakness. Of course collecting assets isn't the point. You're collecting them so that you can build a winning team and when the time comes and you have the basic structure of that team then you can go out and get Sutters and Dorsetts if that's what you think is going to put you over the top based on what you have identified as an area of weakness. You don't go out and get them before you even have a basic skeleton of the team that you want to build. How do we know that Sutter will mesh with the future core when we don't even have it yet? You're putting the cart before the horse.

I think you're missing the point. Collecting assets does not automatically translate into a winning team. Your logic, as evidenced by "you're collecting them so you can biuld a winning team" indicates that you believe this. This is faulty thinking. Collecting, or hoarding, assets does not lead anywhere except having a surplus of assets. Edmonton has been cited already in this thread.

Overspending is relative, and yes, you absolutely overspend from a position from weakness or from strength if it improves your team.

No one knows for sure whether a player you've targeted will mesh with a team. That doesn't, and shouldn't, stop a prudent GM from targeting that player. Odds are, if you've done your homework, it works out. If it doesn't it's back to the drawing board.

 

[DanCloutiersFiveHole]

I think you're missing the point. Collecting assets does not automatically translate into a winning team. Your logic, as evidenced by "you're collecting them so you can biuld a winning team" indicates that you believe this. This is faulty thinking. Collecting, or hoarding, assets does not lead anywhere except having a surplus of assets. Edmonton has been cited already in this thread.

Overspending is relative, and yes, you absolutely overspend from a position from weakness or from strength if it improves your team.

No one knows for sure whether a player you've targeted will mesh with a team. That doesn't, and shouldn't, stop a prudent GM from targeting that player. Odds are, if you've done your homework, it works out. If it doesn't it's back to the drawing board.

See my edit re: hoarding vs. bleeding assets. You want to improve but you need to pick your battles because there is no never ending pool of assets or of cap space. The faulty thinking lies in the belief that it's as simple as acquiring players that you like with little to no forethought regarding the various facets of team management.
Also WRT your Edmonton argument there are similarly arguments to be made for teams that manage their assets well and yet remain competitive. WPG and TB come to mind as teams that draft well and have accrued lots of assets. Much of that is drafting, but sometimes it also comes down to standing pat and not spending.

 

[DanCloutiersFiveHole]

I think you're missing the point. Collecting assets does not automatically translate into a winning team. Your logic, as evidenced by "you're collecting them so you can biuld a winning team" indicates that you believe this. This is faulty thinking. Collecting, or hoarding, assets does not lead anywhere except having a surplus of assets. Edmonton has been cited already in this thread.

Overspending is relative, and yes, you absolutely overspend from a position from weakness or from strength if it improves your team.

No one knows for sure whether a player you've targeted will mesh with a team. That doesn't, and shouldn't, stop a prudent GM from targeting that player. Odds are, if you've done your homework, it works out. If it doesn't it's back to the drawing board.

Also by the logic of immediate improvement > managing long term assets we should just trade all of our prospects for vets

 

[Pip]

What's his statline away from the Sedins?

 

[F A N]

WPG and TB come to mind as teams that draft well and have accrued lots of assets. Much of that is drafting, but sometimes it also comes down to standing pat and not spending.

Trade away your star players for draft picks and prospects, draft in the top 3 for a few years, draft well, make shrewed free agent signings, lock up your core to good contracts, and in the long run you're going to have a good team. But not every team is in that type of position to rebuild that way. It's important to assess what the team has. When Gillis took over the Canucks, he didn't rip the team down. He saw that the Sedins were just turning 27, Kesler was turning 24. Luongo. Dmen still in their prime and Gillis felt he had the core to retool rather than rebuild.

The Jets took the long hard road. For what it's worth, their GM's lack of trades were heavily criticized by the fan base. Quite frankly, I think their rebuild was way too slow given what they had to start with. The Jets made their first playoff appearance last season since Winnipeg got back their team. But Ladd, Wheeler, Buff, and Enstrom were 26 and in their primes. They also had Kane and Little who were emerging as top 6 forwards and Bogosian. Now Ladd is about to turn 30. Wheeler is 29, Enstrom is 30, and they are still building towards the future. They just wasted those guys' prime years by standing pat.

As for the Lightning, no question Yzerman has done a great job. He has sold high, supplemented the team with good free agent acquisitions, drafted well, and made some schrewed trades in recent years. But Yzerman hardly stood pat. He traded for Simon Gagne (throwing in a 4th round pick), Eric Brewer (for 3rd), a 5th round pick for the rights to Benoit Pouliot. Not to mention Anders Lindback and giving up two 2nds and a 3rd. The Lightning was as much a product of missing the playoffs in consecutive years as it was Yzerman hoarding assets and standing pat.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

I think you're missing the point. Collecting assets does not automatically translate into a winning team. Your logic, as evidenced by "you're collecting them so you can biuld a winning team" indicates that you believe this. This is faulty thinking. Collecting, or hoarding, assets does not lead anywhere except having a surplus of assets. Edmonton has been cited already in this thread.

Overspending is relative, and yes, you absolutely overspend from a position from weakness or from strength if it improves your team.

No one knows for sure whether a player you've targeted will mesh with a team. That doesn't, and shouldn't, stop a prudent GM from targeting that player. Odds are, if you've done your homework, it works out. If it doesn't it's back to the drawing board.

This is so much convolution and semantics. The point is that Benning overpaid. financially and asset wise, for a player he has expressed, in his view, is better than he actually is. He appears to be exactly the player that many predicted we would receive based on Penguin fans, basic stats, and advanced stats; A third liner that focuses on the defensive aspect of the game, is fast, has a decent shot, but is abysmal with his line-mates, isn't good along the boards, and has as much grit as a newborn.

 

[Diamonddog01]

This is so much convolution and semantics. The point is that Benning overpaid. financially and asset wise, for a player he has expressed, in his view, is better than he actually is. He appears to be exactly the player that many predicted we would receive based on Penguin fans, basic stats, and advanced stats; A third liner that focuses on the defensive aspect of the game, is fast, has a decent shot, but is abysmal with his line-mates, isn't good along the boards, and has as much grit as a newborn.

Do you even know what convolution and semantics are? What if I were to tell you something, something that would blow your mind?

What if...we didn't overpay for Brandon Sutter at all? What if Sutter is a slight upgrade on Bonino, and we paid Bonino plus slightly more to acquire him?

What if his AAV is in keeing with similar players?

I'd say abysmal with his linemates is hyperbole. Guess what - if he was fast, had a great shot, amazing vision, was tough and gritty he'd be a 1st liner. And be paid a lot more.

 

[WTG]

Lol, Sutter is very much overpaid.

What has he done so far when he is not with the Sedins? Nothing....

 

[Diamonddog01]

Lol, Sutter is very much overpaid.

What has he done so far when he is not with the Sedins? Nothing....

Nope.

 

[WTG]

Nope.

What has he done when not playing with the Sedins?

Seriously... What has sutter done to make him worth 4m+?

Absolutely nothing. The contract is a albatross.

 

[y2kcanucks]

What has he done when not playing with the Sedins?

Seriously... What has sutter done to make him worth 4m+?

Absolutely nothing. The contract is a albatross.

Someone already said nothing and he agreed. At least that was my assumption when he said nope.

Away from the Sedins Sutter has been garbage. He doesn't generate much offensively, and he gets dominated when he's on the ice (based on Corsi stats, which people used in last year's playoffs to say the Sedins dominated...can't have it both ways).

Sutter is overpaid. 5 years at $4.4M per year for this guy is an awful contract.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

Do you even know what convolution and semantics are? What if I were to tell you something, something that would blow your mind?

What if...we didn't overpay for Brandon Sutter at all? What if Sutter is a slight upgrade on Bonino, and we paid Bonino plus slightly more to acquire him?

What if his AAV is in keeing with similar players?

I'd say abysmal with his linemates is hyperbole. Guess what - if he was fast, had a great shot, amazing vision, was tough and gritty he'd be a 1st liner. And be paid a lot more.

Now you're literally arguing semantics. If I use our language casually, don't let it ruin your understanding. And you are complicating, twisting, and creating arguments that deviant from the base idea: Sutter is not what he was sold to us as, and not worth what he's being paid, or what we paid for him.

We were told, he was a gritty, leader who can score, defend, hit, skate and that he was "foundational". He is not.

He's not gritty. He is poor along the boards, and his defensive game is based on positioning in our own end; Not possession, or turn-overs. Anyone can chill out at their own blue-line, then scurry back in front of their net and call themselves a defensive player.

This also causes this rope-a-dope offense to be a driven solely by his speed, and shot, and not by possession or his line-mates. Which is horrible for consistent scoring/success, especially if you put anyone of value on his line; They will go there to waste away. (This is evidence based on how the Pens used him.)

Sutter's AAV is not on line with similar players. He is completely replaceable with any fast, defensively capable forward that can win a face-off. (Make them remotely capable along the boards, or in setting their line-mates up, and Sutter suddenly isn't as good.) He's not as far ahead of Richardson, or Matthias. When you throw in term and salary, it's not really a debate. It is certainly illuminating to see some fan's ability (or lack thereof) regarding analyzing players on the ice, and their stats.

Sutter leads the team in forwards with ice-time. From all reports when we traded for him, and what we extended him for, I expect him to either be a shut down center with better than a 5/3 giveaway/takeaway ratio, or to be catalyst for some offense instead of hitching a ride on the Sedin wagon for awhile and calling him successful.

EDIT: I also never said he needed "amazing vision" or to be tough, but I do expect him to not be poor along the boards, not bring down his linemates offensively, and just simply be as advertised. (Gritty, two-way foundational player.)

 

[Wilch]

Don't worry, this thread will liven up again when Sutter inevitably goes on a small scoring streaking and Benning will once again be proclaimed a genius.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

Nope.

Least we agree on him doing nothing outside with the Sedins here.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

Don't worry, this thread will liven up again when Sutter inevitably goes on a small scoring streaking and Benning will once again be proclaimed a genius.

Indeed.

The comedy is if Benning simply did not offer the contract, we could have all had a good laugh about Horvat, McCann passing him on the depth chart.

As long as Benning can learn from this when it's all done.

 

[bossram]

Indeed.

The comedy is if Benning simply did not offer the contract, we could have all had a good laugh about Horvat, McCann passing him on the depth chart.

As long as Benning can learn from this when it's all done.

Doesn't matter if he learns. His Dorsett/Sutter deals will still be anchoring the team if/when we ever turn the corner back into a contender.

 

[Wilch]

Indeed.

The comedy is if Benning simply did not offer the contract, we could have all had a good laugh about Horvat, McCann passing him on the depth chart.

As long as Benning can learn from this when it's all done.

I hope he does his learning very, very far away from this organization.

 

[Addison Rae]

highest paid forward in the league that's scored under 41 points, hasn't done much outside of playing with the Sedins. Don't mind Burrows with him as Burrows has done a lot of heavy lifting (not that Sutter can't)

He's a decent 3rd liner who's overpaid, and if you think otherwise I'd say you're wrong.

 

[Reign Nateo]

People realize his extension hasn't kicked in yet right? You're calling a guy over-paid after 12 games and a year before the contract they signed him to even begins...

 

[Wilch]

People realize his extension hasn't kicked in yet right? You're calling a guy over-paid after 12 games and a year before the contract they signed him to even begins...

Once again, let's wait until the Titanic hits the iceberg and starts sinking before we roll out the life boats.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

People realize his extension hasn't kicked in yet right? You're calling a guy over-paid after 12 games and a year before the contract they signed him to even begins...

The thing is though....

... everyone had this situation pegged from the day after the trade. He's been exactly how half of the people around viewed it would go down.

He's exactly as advertised. By those people that thought the trade was bad and the re-sign was premature and excessive.

 

[Fat Tony]

People realize his extension hasn't kicked in yet right?

That makes things better?