Canucks Off-season Thread - Canucks re-sign Teves, Rafferty, Boucher

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,456
3,243
Vancouver
No, it was a move made because the team didn't have enough healthy goaltenders and had nothing to do with the team's ambitions that season.

And the Canucks didn't have enough healthy goalies because Benning et al were inexcusably caught with their pants down with regards to goalie depth in the system.

It's just one more example of how, even when Benning does a good by trading MDZ to acquire a draft pick and a serviceable 7/8 dman, he then totally nullifies that by giving up said draft pick in a desperation move to fix a completely avoidable problem elsewhere in the organization.
 

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,456
3,243
Vancouver
Every team that is out of the playoff picture should make, sorry.

Ottawa lost in double overtime of game 7 of the ECF that year. Not sure how big a role Burrows played in that playoff run, but it's pretty much a standard move for Cup contender to make at the deadline.
 

Lindgren

Registered User
Jun 30, 2005
5,942
3,848
If you're trading an expansion-eligible player because you're going to lose him, pretty much your only options are to get a pick or a young player back. Trading Hansen for another player that required protection would obviously make zero sense.

So, just to confirm, there wouldn't have been players who were older than Goldobin, in the NHL, not needing protection, that they could have traded Hansen for?

I'd say that the Canucks were forced to make a minor rebuilding move because they didn't want to lose Hansen in the expansion draft. Not calling it a rebuilding move strikes me as similar to the logic behind not calling Stecher a free agent win for management, because he wanted to come here. It feels like straining to deny credit, when it's hardly necessary, because there's so little available to be given.
 

m9

m9
Sponsor
Jan 23, 2010
25,107
15,229
Ottawa lost in double overtime of game 7 of the ECF that year. Not sure how big a role Burrows played in that playoff run, but it's pretty much a standard move for Cup contender to make at the deadline.

Yes, that was my (poorly-worded) point. Canucks were a bad team out of the playoff picture, Senators were a decent team and playoff contender. I don't consider that a rebuilding move from the Canucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Javaman

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,456
3,243
Vancouver
Yes, that was my (poorly-worded) point. Canucks were a bad team out of the playoff picture, Senators were a decent team and playoff contender. I don't consider that a rebuilding move from the Canucks.

Yep. I think we all realize that. :)
 

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,456
3,243
Vancouver
So, just to confirm, there wouldn't have been players who were older than Goldobin, in the NHL, not needing protection, that they could have traded Hansen for?

I'd say that the Canucks were forced to make a minor rebuilding move because they didn't want to lose Hansen in the expansion draft. Not calling it a rebuilding move strikes me as similar to the logic behind not calling Stecher a free agent win for management, because he wanted to come here. It feels like straining to deny credit, when it's hardly necessary, because there's so little available to be given.

Alright fine, you've won me over. The Hansen trade was the second best rebuilding move that Benning has made.
 

bandwagonesque

I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
Mar 5, 2014
7,097
5,397
And the Canucks didn't have enough healthy goalies because Benning et al were inexcusably caught with their pants down with regards to goalie depth in the system.

It's just one more example of how, even when Benning does a good by trading MDZ to acquire a draft pick and a serviceable 7/8 dman, he then totally nullifies that by giving up said draft pick in a desperation move to fix a completely avoidable problem elsewhere in the organization.

I'm aware of all of this. None of it has to do with what we're talking about, which is whether acquiring the pick in the first place was a rebuilding move.
 

bandwagonesque

I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
Mar 5, 2014
7,097
5,397
Every team that is out of the playoff picture should make, sorry.
Agreed. Those teams would generally, with a few exceptions, constitute the group of teams in the league that are rebuilding.
 

bandwagonesque

I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
Mar 5, 2014
7,097
5,397
The Senators are the worst organization in the entire league and I don't really think anyone should trust their decision-making process.
As you're probably aware, in this case the decision quickly came to be regarded as sound. Burrows played well and the team nearly made the finals.
 

Josepho

i want the bartkowski thread back
Jan 1, 2015
14,762
8,234
British Columbia
As you're probably aware, in this case the decision quickly came to be regarded as sound. Burrows played well and the team nearly made the finals.

He scored 0 playoff goals and faded into nothing the next season. That's not worth giving up a 2nd rounder who'd been improving his stock and I don't think the decision was ever regarded as "sound".
 

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,456
3,243
Vancouver
I'm aware of all of this. None of it has to do with what we're talking about, which is whether acquiring the pick in the first place was a rebuilding move.

Fair enough. But it would only count as a rebuilding move if you use the absolutely most liberal definition of the term "rebuild" possible... trading a veteran player for a pick.

It is probably closer to meeting the definition of cap dump than rebuilding move.

But it's my take that that is the larger point... Benning has never truly attempted to engage in a rebuild. The MDZ trade might just be the 3rd best rebuilding move he's made. And that is both sad and emblematic.

His bungling of the goalie situation is a naught but a distraction from his other incompetencies.
 

bandwagonesque

I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
Mar 5, 2014
7,097
5,397
Fair enough. But it would only count as a rebuilding move if you use the absolutely most liberal definition of the term "rebuild" possible... trading a veteran player for a pick.

It is probably closer to meeting the definition of cap dump than rebuilding move.

But it's my take that that is the larger point... Benning has never truly attempted to engage in a rebuild. The MDZ trade might just be the 3rd best rebuilding move he's made. And that is both sad and emblematic.

His bungling of the goalie situation is a naught but a distraction from his other incompetencies.
That isn't a liberal definition of a rebuilding move. It's exactly the kind of move that comes to mind at the suggestion of rebuilding moves, albeit on a smaller scale. This doesn't absolve Benning of any of the terrible, shortsighted moves he's made, of course.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,417
Vancouver, BC
He scored 0 playoff goals and faded into nothing the next season. That's not worth giving up a 2nd rounder who'd been improving his stock and I don't think the decision was ever regarded as "sound".

Eh ... I suspect the reason Dahlen was made available was that they'd developed a read internally on his compete level and skating and were selling high. That said, yes, he was a good target for us in a Burrows trade.
 

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,456
3,243
Vancouver
That isn't a liberal definition of a rebuilding move. It's exactly the kind of move that comes to mind at the suggestion of rebuilding moves, albeit on a smaller scale. This doesn't absolve Benning of any of the terrible, shortsighted moves he's made, of course.

Gaining a 7th round pick automatically counts as a rebuilding move?

Why isn't shedding MDZ's $3M cap hit for a likely-never-to-play pick considered a cap dump instead?

To me, rebuilding means intentionally acquiring assets that will help the team win a few years down the road. A 7th round pick is almost certainly not going to do that.
 
Last edited:

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,288
14,030
Hiding under WTG's bed...
Fair enough. But it would only count as a rebuilding move if you use the absolutely most liberal definition of the term "rebuild" possible... trading a veteran player for a pick.

It is probably closer to meeting the definition of cap dump than rebuilding move.

But it's my take that that is the larger point... Benning has never truly attempted to engage in a rebuild. The MDZ trade might just be the 3rd best rebuilding move he's made. And that is both sad and emblematic.

His bungling of the goalie situation is a naught but a distraction from his other incompetencies.
What are #1 & #2? I think dealing Bieksa (disregard what he may have done with that 2nd round pick; I treat that as a separate transaction) for a 2nd round pick WITHOUT taking any salary back and/or salary retention was a great move. I like what Bieksa did for the organization but at the point he was dealt, he was clearly well past his due date. Getting *anything* for Burrows was another solid move (same as Bieksa; I like what he did for the organization but his time was done here).
 
Last edited:

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,456
3,243
Vancouver
What are #1 & #2? I think dealing Bieksa (disregard what he may have done with that 2nd round pick) must be #1 or #2; I treat that as a separate transaction) for a 2nd round pick WITHOUT taking any salary back and/or salary retention was a great move. I like what Bieksa did for the organization but at the point he was dealt, he was clearly well past his due date. Getting *anything* for Burrows was another solid move (same as Bieksa; I like what he did for the organization but his time was done here).


I thought it was commonly accepted that the trading away of Burrows and Hansen were number 1 and 2 in terms of transactions that qualified as rebuilding moves.

I'm not entirely serious about calling the MDZ trade a solid #3. Rather, I'm just trying to make a point with bandwagonesque.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hit the post

carrotshirt

Registered User
Jan 1, 2009
492
1,241
Pretty sad that even one of Benning’s best moves in the Burrows/Dahlen trade ends up with Jimbo holding another L because Burrows did more for the Sens than Dahlen did for the Canucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Drop

The Drop

Rain Drop, Drop Top
Jul 12, 2015
14,873
4,060
Vancouver
I think the worst part is trying to explain why "Trade X" was a rebuilding move vs just being dead obvious to everyone.
 

Phenomenon13

Registered User
Oct 10, 2011
2,479
496
Gaining a 7th round pick automatically counts as a rebuilding move?

Why isn't shedding MDZ's $3M cap hit for a likely-never-to-play pick considered a cap dump instead?

To me, rebuilding means intentionally acquiring assets that will help the team win a few years down the road. A 7th round pick is almost certainly not going to do that.


Adding more picks always is a rebuilding move. One of the biggest complaints consistently lodged against Benning is his lack of picks and poor asset management. I think mdz trade was fine but he should have gotten a higher pick. The blues trade later on proved that. Although I agree a 7th doesn't do much, we all agree that we would much rather have a 7th rounder than del zotto.

I thought it was commonly accepted that the trading away of Burrows and Hansen were number 1 and 2 in terms of transactions that qualified as rebuilding moves.

I'm not entirely serious about calling the MDZ trade a solid #3. Rather, I'm just trying to make a point with bandwagonesque.

I think it is rebuilding move. I feel you're being too strict with your definition. Shedding salary and using it as a rebuilding move isnt necessarily mutually exclusive. In the bieksa, Hansen and even garrison trades were all shedding salary and gaining picks. It's of a bigger scale because Del zotto is not very valuable.

A cap dump would be more along the lines of marleau or darling in which a pick was attached to the high cap player to make him moveable.
 

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,456
3,243
Vancouver
Adding more picks always is a rebuilding move. One of the biggest complaints consistently lodged against Benning is his lack of picks and poor asset management. I think mdz trade was fine but he should have gotten a higher pick. The blues trade later on proved that. Although I agree a 7th doesn't do much, we all agree that we would much rather have a 7th rounder than del zotto.



I think it is rebuilding move. I feel you're being too strict with your definition. Shedding salary and using it as a rebuilding move isnt necessarily mutually exclusive. In the bieksa, Hansen and even garrison trades were all shedding salary and gaining picks. It's of a bigger scale because Del zotto is not very valuable.

A cap dump would be more along the lines of marleau or darling in which a pick was attached to the high cap player to make him moveable.

Hmm. I don't think my definition of a rebuilding move is too strict. I just think you need to be able to filter out transactions somehow to make it a meaningful definition. That's why I included the notion of intent. Mind you, I'm assuming we all agree that defining transactions as "rebuilding moves" only makes sense when talking about teams who have been sitting at the bottom of the standings for more than a season or so.

I agree that "cap dump" and "rebuilding" moves don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Is it possible your definition of cap dump is too strict? Must it always include a high cap contract and a draft pick as a sweetener?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->