Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign G Braden Holtby to 2-Year Deal ($4.3M AAV)

[Zippgunn]

Seems like NYR and Washington did it with a fair degree of success, and Washington still had success despite their guy getting raked with COVID and having to play their Dipietro equivalent for most of the year.

And again, it didn't have to be Dipietro as the backup. Anderson or Dell or whatever could have filled the bill.

You and a lot of posters here of your ilk keep assuming that guys like Anderson or Smith would be delighted to come to the hopeless backwater of Vancouver to play for a low ball contract. I will continue to disagree with this ridiculous notion. Most veteran players in the NHL realise that Vancouver is a place where careers go to die...

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Like, these arguments are absolute insanity.

Here are the components of the decision :

1) Demko needs sheltering with a veteran. WRONG - had a breakout season despite not being sheltered. Mis-evaluated Demko.

2) Holtby is a quality goalie who will provide quality support/sheltering for Demko. WRONG. Was so bad that they were forced to start Demko virtually every night to try and compete.

3) $4.5 million on Holtby is worth losing Toffoli or Tanev over. WRONG. Absolutely, comically wrong. We lost the 7th leading goalscorer and one of the top shutdown defenders in the NHL to get an underperforming backup.

This signing was an absolute disaster. Nothing about it went right and it could have hardly have turned out more poorly for the team. To try and frame this signing as 'excellent' is not clued into reality.

Demko was an unproven #1 starter...He did have a breakout season , but what if he had faltered?..There was no guarantee there...Call it an appeal to authority, but I'm sure that Ian Clark thought it would be a good idea to have an experienced starter to work in tandem with the unproven #1...Holtby did not have a good season, but I can see the reasoning for acquiring him.

Holtby was not signed to be a backup.

 

[Zippgunn]

Small sample size, but it appears that the goaltenders that we acquired under Clark, they haven't done well here. But they did seem to have done better moving away from the Canucks.

You don't think it just might be the coaching do you?

 

[deckercky]

Nobody is saying the signing was excellent. But signing someone who could handle a typical 1a load was necessary, and those players almost universally signed multi year multi million dollar contracts.

That first month was brutal, and it would have been idiotic to overplay any goalie for that period (see Calgary running markstrom into the floor) let alone a goalie who had never handled a typical NHL starters load.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Just remember that Holty sucked before coming onto the Canucks, and still sucked while on the Canucks. All the while we could have use his 4m to sign Toffoli to get rid of our top 6 forward problem.

It's almost like past behaviour is a predictor of future behaviour

39 year old Mike Smith underachieved as well at certain points in his career..Goalies run hot and cold all the time...The idea was that Holtby was going to be mentored by Clark to regain his form...With barely any practice time, due to the schedule.. this didnt happen.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Nobody is saying the signing was excellent. But signing someone who could handle a typical 1a load was necessary, and those players almost universally signed multi year multi million dollar contracts.

That first month was brutal, and it would have been idiotic to overplay any goalie for that period (see Calgary running markstrom into the floor) let alone a goalie who had never handled a typical NHL starters load.

Agreed, both goalies (and the entire team) was brutal, in the first month.

 

[MS]

Demko was an unproven #1 starter...He did have a breakout season , but what if he had faltered?..There was no guarantee there...Call it an appeal to authority, but I'm sure that Ian Clark thought it would be a good idea to have an experienced starter to work in tandem with the unproven #1...Holtby did not have a good season, but I can see the reasoning for acquiring him.

Holtby was not signed to be a backup.

HE DIDN'T FALTER. He didn't falter despite Holtby's horribleness putting him in the exact situation that him (and those defending this garbage deal) were so super worried about.

Their job is to correctly evaluate their players and build their roster off those correct evaluations.

Their evaluation that support for Demko was more important than Tanev or Toffoli was absolutely, completely, utterly wrong.

When you have the gigantic cap mess that Jim Benning created, you aren't going to be able to fill every hole in your roster or do every single thing you want. You have to pick your poisons and take some risks if you want to succeed and compete. Thinking that a backup (or 1B or whatever you want to call it) goalie was more important than core roster players was an absolute garbage decision and a complete mis-read of the situation by a bad manager.

And again, I spelled all of this out for you from the second the signing was made, literally everything I said proved to be 100% correct and everything you said proved to be 100% wrong, and you're still trying to argue that this was a good/necessary signing.

 

[m9]

People are trying to justify the signing based on circumstances and I just don't get it.

Simply put, the team signed a player who had played bad in recent seasons to a pretty big contract. That player once again played bad, and now the team is left with a negative contract that may be bought out.

There is not really any way to spin it - that's a bad signing. Take out all of the extra fluff - it's bad.

What other information do you possibly need? If this was a different position, would there be any argument?

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

they were expecting to lose.

This sure sounds revisionist, particularly how the usual suspects were huffing their own farts over "how well" the Canucks did in the bubble.

he was a backup starter, not a backup.

I, uh...okay.

 

[timw33]

Holtby signing being good is not a very good hill to die on.

 

[deckercky]

Agreed, both goalies (and the entire team) was brutal, in the first month.

The biggest complaint of Bennings offseason should be that he did not communicate what was being done with the leaders of the team, which meant that during the start of the season, there were players pouting.

I'm not sure how much of a plan there actually was given some of the comments about negotiating to the last minute with Markstrom and asking Toffoli, Tanev and Stecher to wait, but there ought to have been hard conversions about losing talent and the direction of the team in the exit interviews the year before.

 

[deckercky]

People are trying to justify the signing based on circumstances and I just don't get it.

Simply put, the team signed a player who had played bad in recent seasons to a pretty big contract. That player once again played bad, and now the team is left with a negative contract that may be bought out.

There is not really any way to spin it - that's a bad signing. Take out all of the extra fluff - it's bad.

What other information do you possibly need? If this was a different position, would there be any argument?

People are simply arguing that it is pure revisionism to pretend that the team could have realistically reallocated 3m+ from the cap to other positions. For what the Canucks needed, they were paying $3m+ for multiple seasons. Holtby was a gamble that went badly (Benning truly did not need to go out and sign a goalie at the opening of free agency), but there was no realistic circumstance where cash for Toffoli is freed up from Holtbys contract.

 

[MS]

People are trying to justify the signing based on circumstances and I just don't get it.

Simply put, the team signed a player who had played bad in recent seasons to a pretty big contract. That player once again played bad, and now the team is left with a negative contract that may be bought out.

There is not really any way to spin it - that's a bad signing. Take out all of the extra fluff - it's bad.

What other information do you possibly need? If this was a different position, would there be any argument?

If we go back to the summer of 2019, there were rumours we were in on Tyson Barrie.

Again, it's their job to have a read on their players and evaluate them correctly. Quinn Hughes was clearly ready to be an NHL PP QB. If they'd gone and made a huge trade for Tyson Barrie at a huge cap hit to man the PP (instead of JT Miller), that would have been a terrible mis-read of the team's needs and of Quinn Hughes. And if Barrie then chewed up $6 million in cap space while either a) blocking Hughes or b) wasting away on the 2nd PP unit, that would have been a f***ing awful acquisition. And 'WHAT IF HUGHES HAD FALTERED?' wouldn't excuse that f***ing awful acquisition.

Their job is to get it right. They got it wrong.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Holtby was signed with the hope/expectation that he was going to bounce back from some shitty years in Washington and that the Canucks goalie coach staff could rehab him, thus mitigating the loss of Markstrom and 'sheltering' Demko. He was expected, at the very least, to split games with Demko, if not take the bulk of them.

It is high comedy to say now that the Canucks were 'expecting' to lose when they sunk big dick dollars into a costly contract for an established starting goaltender and not an established backup. If they were 'expecting' to lose, why make such a costly investment when a lesser investment could've been made? Was the demand for Holtby sherseys that high? ?????????

It was a move designed fully to compete now and serves as yet another example of Jim Benning being horribly unqualified to evaluate talent, part of an ongoing series courtesy of the Vancouver Canucks. A combination of wrongly assessing a player, wrongly assessing the team's needs, making a personnel decision that placed priority on the wrong position (and subsequently costing the team in other areas) and just a general overall shitty contract.

I really want to know why this was "excellent" and not, say, the cost of doing business, a 'mistakes happen' or some other similar line of thought.

But I'm sure we'll hear how it was "actually" Aquilini who had demanded the signing and Benning was just a poor hostage on the good ship Canucks.

 

[Blue and Green]

The premise of getting a 1B was justifiable in the circumstances. However, Holtby was on a three-year decline that was eerily similar to Schneider's tumble. Made no sense to sign him at that cap hit. Strategically correct, tactically blundered-- another Benning UFA fiasco.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

I too look forward to an 8th consecutive outstanding season.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

HE DIDN'T FALTER. He didn't falter despite Holtby's horribleness putting him in the exact situation that him (and those defending this garbage deal) were so super worried about.

Their job is to correctly evaluate their players and build their roster off those correct evaluations.

Their evaluation that support for Demko was more important than Tanev or Toffoli was absolutely, completely, utterly wrong.

When you have the gigantic cap mess that Jim Benning created, you aren't going to be able to fill every hole in your roster or do every single thing you want. You have to pick your poisons and take some risks if you want to succeed and compete. Thinking that a backup (or 1B or whatever you want to call it) goalie was more important than core roster players was an absolute garbage decision and a complete mis-read of the situation by a bad manager.

And again, I spelled all of this out for you from the second the signing was made, literally everything I said proved to be 100% correct and everything you said proved to be 100% wrong, and you're still trying to argue that this was a good/necessary signing.

Nothing sinks team faster than poor goaltending..I would say that they did put more emphasis on support for Demko than other positions, they wanted an experienced starter..and didnt know if Demko could handle carrying the load of being a #1 starter, in a compressed schedule (this has been spelled out for you umpteen times )....Also, the Canucks goaltending expert believed they could turn his game around.


That was the reason behind signing Holtby (to short 2 year deal with no ED protection)...

Holtby had a poor season..nobodys arguing that.

 

[m9]

People are simply arguing that it is pure revisionism to pretend that the team could have realistically reallocated 3m+ from the cap to other positions. For what the Canucks needed, they were paying $3m+ for multiple seasons. Holtby was a gamble that went badly (Benning truly did not need to go out and sign a goalie at the opening of free agency), but there was no realistic circumstance where cash for Toffoli is freed up from Holtbys contract.

It's not hard to re-allocate Holtby/Virtanen money to Toffoli/another goalie and that was a very realistic circumstance. But that's just one example of what they could have done in terms of team building. They went a different direction, and it was a bad one.

 

[krutovsdonut]

People are simply arguing that it is pure revisionism to pretend that the team could have realistically reallocated 3m+ from the cap to other positions. For what the Canucks needed, they were paying $3m+ for multiple seasons. Holtby was a gamble that went badly (Benning truly did not need to go out and sign a goalie at the opening of free agency), but there was no realistic circumstance where cash for Toffoli is freed up from Holtbys contract.

i don't know that it went badly. i think it went exactly to plan. it will have gone badly if we have to pay an asset to get rid of him

i think he played exactly how you would have projected him to play on a worse team with a penchant for bleeding high danger opportunities based on his caps numbers. he certainly did not blow the doors off, but as a veteran backstop signing he appears to have fulfilled his intended off ice role very well. we had no drama on goaltending and for that i thank the veteran goalie. it is the same compliment i paid miller at the end. he sheltered and helped groom the damaged goods that were marky into a starter for three years, ensured there was no drama, played a tangible leadership role beyond the crease, and for his troubles people here dumped on him on the way out like he was the second coming of messier.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You and a lot of posters here of your ilk keep assuming that guys like Anderson or Smith would be delighted to come to the hopeless backwater of Vancouver to play for a low ball contract. I will continue to disagree with this ridiculous notion. Most veteran players in the NHL realise that Vancouver is a place where careers go to die...

anderson was coming off being shelled for years and basically retired and took a deal to bail out a good team in washington after lundqvist went down. they then hardly played the guy. there is no basis for assuming he was prepared to or could have played a whole season on a crappy team getting shelled.

 

[MS]

Nothing sinks team faster than poor goaltending..I would say that they did put more emphasis on support for Demko than other positions, they wanted an experienced starter..and didnt know if Demko could handle carrying the load of being a #1 starter, in a compressed schedule (this has been spelled out for you umpteen times )....Also, the Canucks goaltending expert believed they could turn his game around.


That was the reason behind signing Holtby (to short 2 year deal with no ED protection)...

Holtby had a poor season..nobodys arguing that.

THEIR JOB WAS TO EVALUATE DEMKO CORRECTLY AND THEY DID NOT.

THEIR JOB WAS TO EVALUATE HOLTBY CORRECTLY AND THEY DID NOT.

THEIR JOB WAS TO EVALUATE THE TEAM'S ROSTER NEEDS CORRECTLY AND THEY DID NOT.

Yes, in a perfect world filled with magic rainbows and unicorns and no salary cap it would have been preferable to have a top veteran backup than not, but in actual reality with an actual salary cap thinking that that should have been the top offseason priority was a catastrophic mis-evaluation of the situation. It should have been way, way down the priority list.

Yes, nothing sinks a team faster than poor goaltending. They signed one of the worst goaltenders in the NHL from 19-20 and his continued crap play helped sink the team in 20-21. 'Thinking you could turn him around' is not an excuse for a bad move if you can't turn him around. You got it wrong. I'm sure Edmonton signed Kyle Turris last year thinking they could turn him around, but he continued to play like absolute crap so that was a bad signing that they got wrong.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Thread is over 1,000 - closed.