Confirmed with Link: Del Zotto to Anaheim for Luke Schenn and a 2020 7th round pick; Schenn goes to Utica

[MS]

I didn't consider the contract, I'd have to take a look at that to see how bad it is. I'm not sure Del Zotto clears waivers, even that nothing goalie we acquired didn't get through and I'm tired of Benning losing his pants at every turn; in this case he didn't imo.

Besides, the Comets blueline is decimated and they can really use Schenn, that's the main consideration here for me. And Schenn can fill in up here vas well as Del Zotto can in a pinch.

Will note that I thought Schenn was making $1.5 (which he was last year) and not $800k which is a bit different. But still a worthless asset.

Basically there’s a jumble of stuff here to make it look like we got something for Del Zotto when in actuality we got a whole lot of nothing and there was really no difference between this and giving him away.

 

[Canuck Luck]

It's not the $$ it's that we now only have one retention slot for the deadline instead of two. We didn't properly capitalize on the value of that slot, especially using it to retain so little $$.

But where would we use that retention spot? our only candidates were MDZ and Edler. I highly doubt Benning would be willing to eat crow on Schaller by moving him + retain on top of it. the last option is Gagner and no teams trading for him even with retention with a 2nd year still left on the deal

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

we got a whole lot of nothing and there was really no difference between this and giving him away.

It's a non event that barely merits commenting on but you've seen the injury bug wipe out the Comets defense first hand; this at least provides what let's assume will be a very capable vet down there. Let's face it, Green has cratered any value there might have been in Del Zotto with non usage all year.

 

[MS]

But where would we use that retention spot? our only candidates were MDZ and Edler. I highly doubt Benning would be willing to eat crow on Schaller by moving him + retain on top of it. the last option is Gagner and no teams trading for him even with retention with a 2nd year still left on the deal

Giving Anaheim that retention spot still has value.

Whether we were going to use it or not, we gave something of value that Anaheim wanted to them and you expect value back.

 

[m9]

Explain how this is better than losing Del Zotto on waivers.

A 7th rounder in 2020 is nearly worthless.

Using a salary retention spot has value.
That retained salary has value.
We take on a negative-value asset in Schenn and have to pay his one-way contract.
We lose a roster spot on Schenn.

The concept is great, the value is questionable. If someone told you a week ago the Canucks made a trade where they gained a draft pick because they retained on a pending UFA & took back a negative contract you would have to work to come up with a negative scenario. But here we are.

 

[Canuck Luck]

Will note that I thought Schenn was making $1.5 (which he was last year) and not $800k which is a bit different. But still a worthless asset.

Basically there’s a jumble of stuff here to make it look like we got something for Del Zotto when in actuality we got a whole lot of nothing and there was really no difference between this and giving him away.

we got a cheap minor downgrade + a 7th round pick. if we just let him walk people complain we didnt try to trade him. we trade him and get depth for Utica and a pick and people complain its basically nothing. Damned if you do damned if you dont. I'm not even a Benning supporter, I hate him and want him fired. But to complain about this trade especially about getting a depth player back is just dumb. If Benning didnt and we even have 1 injury on d guess who Utica has left once we call up Sautner. McEneny, Brisebois, and Chatfield. No other Canuck contracted d-men. 1 injury and Utica is left with half a d-corps and not a good one at that.

 

[Canuck Luck]

Giving Anaheim that retention spot still has value.

Whether we were going to use it or not, we gave something of value that Anaheim wanted to them and you expect value back.

except we didnt give them a retention spot? We used our own? retention spots cant be traded so it does matter whether or not we would use it.

Its like the non Hamhuis deal. We didnt move Hamhuis for the best offer we could get because it wasnt "enough" value. So we kept him for the remaining 20 or so games and let him walk. Same thing applies to the retention spot. If Benning doesnt use it here, he probably doesnt use it at all.

Better to have an asset go unused or use the asset and get even a 7th round pick? I'd say just using it and getting a 7th is better than not using it and getting nothing. Especially since the retention spot opens back up next year.

 

[xtra]

we got a cheap minor downgrade + a 7th round pick. if we just let him walk people complain we didnt try to trade him. we trade him and get depth for Utica and a pick and people complain its basically nothing. Damned if you do damned if you dont. I'm not even a Benning supporter, I hate him and want him fired. But to complain about this trade especially about getting a depth player back is just dumb. If Benning didnt and we even have 1 injury on d guess who Utica has left once we call up Sautner. McEneny, Brisebois, and Chatfield. No other Canuck contracted d-men. 1 injury and Utica is left with half a d-corps and not a good one at that.

If we weren’t retaining salary the deal you would be right but, we are and now don’t have that ability to do that in another trade.

Hence the retention part is the issue.

 

[timw33]

Okay well there you have it we still risk losing someone on waivers if we keep MDZ whereas now we dont have to waive anyone. Not to mention MDZ even with the retention makes much more than the cheap depth d-men that fetched picks last season. Those teams are looking for cheap #7-8-9 dmen for depth for playoffs when injuries hit. Schenn is a cheap depth d-man. Del Zotto is not due to his contract.

Now the point of waiving the 3 you mentioned above. No way Benning goes to the owners saying yea i made a mistake signing this guy for almost 2M while h just forced them to eat Gagner's salary. Aqualini already is on the record saying hes displeased with that. Pouliot/Granlund our coach clearly feels belong on the roster playing so why would they get waived over guys not playing at all?

Yeah, he doesn't go to the owner saying that because he's an incompetent sad sack incapable of cutting loose anchors that he attached to the ship in the first place.

And if Green feels that those two players should be on the roster....well hell, the simple answer is that Travis Green probably isn't that great of a coach after all.

I get why you're trying to argue the rationale behind this, but really it's taking too much focus away from holding our management (and coaching) accountable for their decisions.

 

[MS]

except we didnt give them a retention spot? We used our own? retention spots cant be traded so it does matter whether or not we would use it. Better to have an asset go unused or use the asset and get even a 7th round pick? I'd say just using it and getting a 7th is better than not using it and getting nothing. Especially since the retention spot opens back up next year.

We gave them our retention spot or used it for them or however you want to phrase it.

Retaining salary has value, and teams can only do it so much. Whether we had 10 guys we could potentially retain on or 0, that spot still has value.

If you have something of value you aren’t going to use (concert tickets, hotel stay, whatever) you aren’t just going to give it away to a stranger for free.

Think of this deal from Anaheim’s perspective. They basically get a free NHL defender AND we take a contract they don’t want away AND we retain salary to basically get Del Zotto’s contract down to barely over $1 million. They’re laughing here.

 

[Canuck Luck]

If we weren’t retaining salary the deal you would be right but, we are and now don’t have that ability to do that in another trade.

Hence the retention part is the issue.

Without that would any team even take on MDZ without giving up someone thats actually a cap dump and takes up cap space even if in the minors? Would Benning even use it on anyone else? We'll find out once the deadline passes.

Yeah, he doesn't go to the owner saying that because he's an incompetent sad sack incapable of cutting loose anchors that he attached to the ship in the first place.

And if Green feels that those two players should be on the roster....well hell, the simple answer is that Travis Green probably isn't that great of a coach after all.

I get why you're trying to argue the rationale behind this, but really it's taking too much focus away from holding our management (and coaching) accountable for their decisions.

Also he know Aqua man would be extremely upset if he went to him admitting that mistake. Like I said, see Gagner comments by Aqualini. While that may be what us fans want, its not in Benning's self interest.

I wasnt taking anything away from holding our management accountable. I was taking away from blaming management for such minor things that are more positive than negative. Complaining we get a #8 d-man playing in Utica at 800k + a 7th for our #8 d-man making 3.5M by using 25% retention is not something that they should be held accountable for as if its a negative thing.

Think of it like this if we were Anaheim in this trade and they were us, would you be happy with the deal? I would assume no. That means its a good deal

 

[Javaman]

Is it just me, or did anyone else wonder for a moment if Benning made the deal, in part, to gain some cap space in anticipation of being a buyer at the TDL?

Or did I get a brief, panicky jolt in my gut for no good reason?

 

[Bleach Clean]

I like MDZ better than Pouliot as well, but they are still in the same tier of depth defensemen. Maybe MDZ is a #7 & Pouliot is a #8 or #9. Schenn, same as Pouliot. Playing one guy over another is a coaching issue, not an issue with this trade. MDZ is actually playing his correct role as a #7 getting 23 games - the issue is that they don't have a better player in front of him. Pouliot sucking doesn't suddenly make MDZ a better player, though.

And yes, based off past seasons he should be worth more than a future 7th. The additional circumstances here are that there are reports he requested a trade, which added urgency. He is still overpaid with retention, meaning there were some teams likely not able to take him on and the market is smaller. Lastly, you also got a depth guy back who would also be worth a late pick most years.

By getting Schenn back they have also left themselves open to gain additional value by trading him or another RHD before the deadline.

Schenn has already passed through waivers without being claimed. Odds of getting a pick are rather slim. Especially with this GM.

I don't want to get into a debate about tiers or rank because there is going to be subjectivity involved. I could do a deep dive into the stats to show where Del Zotto ranks among his NHL peers, but I think there would still be room to disagree there too. That's why I focus on Pouliot. You said that Pouliot sucking doesn't make Del Zotto a better player. That's true, but that's besides the point of recognizing that he's a better player.

If we agree that he's better, why is he playing half as many games?

Lastly, the coaching issue is an issue with the trade. Inexplicably, Green played Del Zotto as the #2 TOI/GP dman last year. He then flip-flopped and put Del Zotto in the doghouse this year. Now, if the GM and coach are aligned, and Benning knows that Del Zotto is headed for the doghouse, why doesn't he move quicker to get him out? If there were issues last year, and Green was forced to play him when he did not want to (rather spurious rationale), why doesn't Benning move him then? This misalignment exacerbates the issues in both coaching and managing. That's how we get a stupid trade forced by self-inflicted pressures.

 

[MS]

Will also note that it’s weird to hear this narrative that Del Zotto was so horrible this year and bleeding goals, etc.

It’s just totally false.

Del Zotto was a +3 this year and on the ice for a completely reasonable 16 ES goals - a far cry from the Gudbranson disaster. His possession numbers were good and he wasn’t catching a lucky PDO - if anything the opposite was the case.

And to my eye test, he was playing very solid hockey this year up until taking two (admittedly selfish and idiotic) penalties that ended up costing us games and got him stuck in the press box.

Was easily better than Pouliot and Gudbranson and the way we tanked his value here is not amazing. And for a team trying to make the playoffs to give away a serviceable defender so we can further entrench the godawful Gudbranson and Pouliot in the lineup is a little backwards.

 

[timbermen]

Chalk up another win for JB, now on a 12 trade winning streak. He traded Nilsson to Ottawa and they just beat 3 teams the Canucks are trying to catch. That is a fact your little stats machines don't factor in. They get a pick and a good DMan for Utica and they would have lost DZ on waivers for nothing.

 

[M2Beezy]

Is it just me, or did anyone else wonder for a moment if Benning made the deal, in part, to gain some cap space in anticipation of being a buyer at the TDL?

Or did I get a brief, panicky jolt in my gut for no good reason?

Brief panicky jolt in your gut for no good reason Java Man

 

[StreetHawk]

Is it just me, or did anyone else wonder for a moment if Benning made the deal, in part, to gain some cap space in anticipation of being a buyer at the TDL?

Or did I get a brief, panicky jolt in my gut for no good reason?

Canucks cap with MDZ was project to be around $71 million. They are $8 million under the cap more than half way through the season. Meaning that they could add $16 million of annual cap hit and still be under the salary cap.

 

[m9]

Schenn has already passed through waivers without being claimed. Odds of getting a pick are rather slim. Especially with this GM.

I don't want to get into a debate about tiers or rank because there is going to be subjectivity involved. I could do a deep dive into the stats to show where Del Zotto ranks among his NHL peers, but I think there would still be room to disagree there too. That's why I focus on Pouliot. You said that Pouliot sucking doesn't make Del Zotto a better player. That's true, but that's besides the point of recognizing that he's a better player.

If we agree that he's better, why is he playing half as many games?

Lastly, the coaching issue is an issue with the trade. Inexplicably, Green played Del Zotto as the #2 TOI/GP dman last year. He then flip-flopped and put Del Zotto in the doghouse this year. Now, if the GM and coach are aligned, and Benning knows that Del Zotto is headed for the doghouse, why doesn't he move quicker to get him out? If there were issues last year, and Green was forced to play him when he did not want to (rather spurious rationale), why doesn't Benning move him then? This misalignment exacerbates the issues in both coaching and managing. That's how we get a stupid trade forced by self-inflicted pressures.

Can't explain Pouliot over MDZ this year, or what's changed year over year in regards to the player. Very strange.

 

[wavaxa2]

It's three retention spots, guys.

Straight from Section 50.5 (e) (iii) (C) of the CBA, page 272:

Under no circumstances may a Club:
(1)
Have in its Averaged Club Salary in any single League
Year amounts attributable to more than three (3) Retained
Salary SPCs for Players that the Club has Traded to other
Club(s)

 

[timw33]

It's three retention spots, guys.

Straight from Section 50.5 (e) (iii) (C) of the CBA, page 272:

Under no circumstances may a Club:
(1)
Have in its Averaged Club Salary in any single League
Year amounts attributable to more than three (3) Retained
Salary SPCs for Players that the Club has Traded to other
Club(s)

Has anyone been saying we only have 2 spots?

We've used 2 of 3 and have one left going into the deadline.

 

[wavaxa2]

Has anyone been saying we only have 2 spots?

The topic of 2 versus 3 came up earlier in the thread. I guess you missed a few posts, or ignored a few folk. I was just providing clarification.

 

[Hoglander]

But where would we use that retention spot? our only candidates were MDZ and Edler. I highly doubt Benning would be willing to eat crow on Schaller by moving him + retain on top of it. the last option is Gagner and no teams trading for him even with retention with a 2nd year still left on the deal

That's because Benning is a damn coward. Plus this trade confirms his idiocy yet again:

Benning retains on an overpaid #8 dman and recieves Schenn, a less than worthless cap dump that should never see NHL ice again. The 7th is nothing. When was the last time a Canuck 7th rounder did anything? - 2005, Mario Bliznak. Played 6 NHL games. So we retain, in order to get nothing and a negative-value cap dump. That's only part of Benning's blunder.

The excuse: we would need to send someone down when EP gets back. Laughable. Useless scrub forwards like Schaller and Granlund would return absolutely nothing in a trade, send one of them down! But no, let's give an actual NHL asset away(Del Zotto isn't good, but still an NHLer) for nothing. Sorry, scratch that - less than nothing.

So here we have Del Zotto being paid millions to not play. Signing him was just plain dumb in the first place, but now Benning caves to this overpaid depth player's demands, but not only that, it's at the worst time! We move Del Zotto now and recieve less than nothing. OMG that is beyond stupid. If we held him until the deadline, prices increase and we get a 5th instead of a useless 7th. Compare the history of our 7th round selections to our 5th's(since only 2012 instead of 2005) : Hutton, Forsling(still picked by us), Gaudette, Utunen shows potential. Huge difference between those picks and the Mackenze Stewart's of the world.

This disaster was Benning dropping the ball yet again, but this time he dropped it while in a public shower.

 

[timw33]

The topic of 2 versus 3 came up earlier in the thread. I guess you missed a few posts, or ignored a few folk. I was just providing clarification.

Oh yeah I have 2 benning trolls ignored—probably that.

 

[Canuck Luck]

That's because Benning is a damn coward. Plus this trade confirms his idiocy yet again:

Benning retains on an overpaid #8 dman and recieves Schenn, a less than worthless cap dump that should never see NHL ice again. The 7th is nothing. When was the last time a Canuck 7th rounder did anything? - 2005, Mario Bliznak. Played 6 NHL games. So we retain, in order to get nothing and a negative-value cap dump. That's only part of Benning's blunder.

The excuse: we would need to send someone down when EP gets back. Laughable. Useless scrub forwards like Schaller and Granlund would return absolutely nothing in a trade, send one of them down! But no, let's give an actual NHL asset away(Del Zotto isn't good, but still an NHLer) for nothing. Sorry, scratch that - less than nothing.

So here we have Del Zotto being paid millions to not play. Signing him was just plain dumb in the first place, but now Benning caves to this overpaid depth player's demands, but not only that, it's at the worst time! We move Del Zotto now and recieve less than nothing. OMG that is beyond stupid. If we held him until the deadline, prices increase and we get a 5th instead of a useless 7th. Compare the history of our 7th round selections to our 5th's(since only 2012 instead of 2005) : Hutton, Forsling(still picked by us), Gaudette, Utunen shows potential. Huge difference between those picks and the Mackenze Stewart's of the world.

This disaster was Benning dropping the ball yet again, but this time he dropped it while in a public shower.

Not sure if this post is serious it seems satirical but with the amount of detail it makes me question whether or not it is.

If it isn’t take a step back from the ledge bud

 

[Melvin]

I am so weary of all the spineless Benning sycophants