Confirmed with Link: Del Zotto to Anaheim for Luke Schenn and a 2020 7th round pick; Schenn goes to Utica
- Thread starter Fire Benning
- Start date
topched88
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2007
- 1,381
- 362
Can someone confirm that once the Del zotto contract expires, we open up an extra retention spot? If so I’m not so chapped about it. I guess it has to be that way because that’s what happens with Hansen right?
If so, not a huge deal. Unlikely we were going to retain salary on 2 players between now and July 1.
If so, not a huge deal. Unlikely we were going to retain salary on 2 players between now and July 1.
MS is making some excellent points.
Ultimately the deal may be so minor and inconsequential that it deserves no discussion. But those saying it is an example of shrewdness of Benning and co. are groping here.
If anything, it again reveals a inability of the team to maximize assets or think long term. First they devalue a potential asset. Say what you will but del Zotto at 28 has played nearly 600 NHL games. There is a good chance he goes on to play many more years in the League. He was worth something for a team needing depth going into the playoffs. I have been saying all year that del Zotto had to be moved at the deadline. I was hoping that he would increase his value and get a decent prospect or draft choice. But the team never gave him a chance to that. Instead they reduced his value to near zero. They took away any chance of using this asset to improve the team (unless you are thinking a 7th down the road is anything of value).
And ironically people try to make the point that management was smart b/c they couldn't waive del Zotto to the minors and they could Schenn. That, in other words, some team would have taken him. But then aren't you admitting he had value to other teams? And if so, then why not try to increase that value by actually playing him. Maybe you believe this wouldn't have increased his value but wouldn't a smarter management team have tried this? What was wrong with making the effort? Wouldn't that have been smarter than reducing his value?
Moreover, the Canucks retain salary which decrease the ability of the team to give another team cap relief for which they might have given something of value up. Some teams would love to dump salary so they could pursue major help heading into the playoffs. The more room the Canucks have under the cap, the better the possibility they could make such a deal.
And all this is not should not be generalized into some pro-Benning, anti-Benning dispute. People are simply looking at this particular deal and trying to assess whether this was a good use of various assets. Trying to justify the deal by saying any contrary view is just people venting once again on Benning totally misses the point. If you want to justify the deal (and some have tried to do this) then do it on the basis of this particular deal and don't divert that assessment by making some ad hominem attack saying people questioning the deal are motivated by some mindless anti-Benning sentiment.
Ultimately the deal might be only be marginally bad but saying Benning is now making better deals, based on this transaction, seems groundless to me.
Ultimately the deal may be so minor and inconsequential that it deserves no discussion. But those saying it is an example of shrewdness of Benning and co. are groping here.
If anything, it again reveals a inability of the team to maximize assets or think long term. First they devalue a potential asset. Say what you will but del Zotto at 28 has played nearly 600 NHL games. There is a good chance he goes on to play many more years in the League. He was worth something for a team needing depth going into the playoffs. I have been saying all year that del Zotto had to be moved at the deadline. I was hoping that he would increase his value and get a decent prospect or draft choice. But the team never gave him a chance to that. Instead they reduced his value to near zero. They took away any chance of using this asset to improve the team (unless you are thinking a 7th down the road is anything of value).
And ironically people try to make the point that management was smart b/c they couldn't waive del Zotto to the minors and they could Schenn. That, in other words, some team would have taken him. But then aren't you admitting he had value to other teams? And if so, then why not try to increase that value by actually playing him. Maybe you believe this wouldn't have increased his value but wouldn't a smarter management team have tried this? What was wrong with making the effort? Wouldn't that have been smarter than reducing his value?
Moreover, the Canucks retain salary which decrease the ability of the team to give another team cap relief for which they might have given something of value up. Some teams would love to dump salary so they could pursue major help heading into the playoffs. The more room the Canucks have under the cap, the better the possibility they could make such a deal.
And all this is not should not be generalized into some pro-Benning, anti-Benning dispute. People are simply looking at this particular deal and trying to assess whether this was a good use of various assets. Trying to justify the deal by saying any contrary view is just people venting once again on Benning totally misses the point. If you want to justify the deal (and some have tried to do this) then do it on the basis of this particular deal and don't divert that assessment by making some ad hominem attack saying people questioning the deal are motivated by some mindless anti-Benning sentiment.
Ultimately the deal might be only be marginally bad but saying Benning is now making better deals, based on this transaction, seems groundless to me.
thekernel
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 6,238
- 3,476
thekernel
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 6,238
- 3,476
A good chance? Many more years? You don't seriously believe that? I bet you he's in Switzerland come summer of 2020. The man shot himself in the foot by costing us so many games. We didn't reduce his value to zero, he was never going to be worth a 4th or a 5th even to the most desperate. Let's not kid ourselves.
While this is technically true, his cap hit is $750,000; we still have upwards of $9 million in room, and still have the ability to retain on another deal. Don't tell other people they're reaching when you're literally trying to use this as an actual argument.
Everyone with no horse in the race is saying this deal is a big old "whatever". Which I agree with. We got "a hair more than nothing" out of "nothing". That's not a loss. Fit that into the Benning narrative however you like, but we did not lose this deal.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,044
- 6,610
You don't know this.
The loss is in devaluing a trade asset before it's traded. Or, in not trading said asset when at its optimal utility (last offseason).
You can replace Benning with a cardboard cut out of Wayne Brady and that would still be the rationale. Believe what you want about narratives.
Pip
Registered User
People are saying this trade is a disaster? For real?
Who is saying the trade is a disaster?
Balls Mahoney
2015-2016 HF Premier League World Champion
I'm in peak mid-season Canucks fan disinterest which means I haven't been watching at all this season. My initial reaction was typical anger in that we gave away a legit top four defenseman for nothing as Del Zotto was one of the better defensemen in his time here. A weird hate cult developed around him because he wasn't a complete first pairing defenseman but he was better than just about everyone else aside from Tanev and Edler. However, reading people who've been watching the recent games saying he's been a healthy scratch led me to believe there was more to this than I know. But from my perspective it was Pejorative Slured to trade a second pairing defenseman for nothing. Especially when our blueline is an abomination.
UnleashRasmus
Rasmus has gone Super Saiyan VI!
Del Zotto has as much value as diaper rash and a bottle of curdled milk. Not only is Schenn a better defensemen, the pick is in addition a fine asset.
Fire Benning
diaper filled piss baby
Not really though, while not a world beater he was playing reasonably well enough to warrant getting minutes over Gudbranson and Pouliot.
Scratching him over those guys was questionable from a lineup management perspective.
So then this trade is already a failure to you, right?
I mean, one day after the trade the Ducks were feeling so good about acquiring MDZ that they won their first game in 13. If Anaheim goes on a bit of a run and keeps the Canucks out of a wildcard place, by your logic, this trade would be a failure then, no?
At the end of the day, it's a pretty nothing trade, but what it does point out is how weak Jim is at negotiating and does nothing to quell the notion that he's an easy mark for opposing GM's.
All this criticism about how the Canucks "devalued" an asset like Del Zotto is akin to criticizing a parent for telling an 18 year old kid that he/she will never become a medical doctor in B.C. because he/she did poorly in high school sciences and didn't take all the sciences in Grade 12. Yep. All that kid needs is a science tutor and he/she will become a medical doctor in B.C.
It's funny how the same posters who are criticizing this trade are the same posters who criticized Del Zotto's usage last season, his contract, and how the D sucks with him playing but suddenly he's this valuable asset that got devalued. All you need to do is play him!
It's funny how the same posters who are criticizing this trade are the same posters who criticized Del Zotto's usage last season, his contract, and how the D sucks with him playing but suddenly he's this valuable asset that got devalued. All you need to do is play him!
Josepho
i want the bartkowski thread back
I’ve consistently said Del Zotto is a useful #5 defender who gets overstretched when given top-4 minutes. Nothing has changed.
Of all the signings Benning has made, this was probably the best. And we still devalued the asset and got nothing.
Balls Mahoney
2015-2016 HF Premier League World Champion
wavaxa2
Registered User
- Sep 24, 2010
- 687
- 461
CharasLazyWrister
Registered User
I remember when Del Zotto was a rookie and he was the next big thing in New York.
How times have changed...
How times have changed...
UnleashRasmus
Rasmus has gone Super Saiyan VI!
xtra
Registered User
The most valuable piece in this whole trade is the salary retention spot; but we don’t have any valuable tradable pieces that we could retain salary on so idk, total nothing trade not a loss but not a win for sure.
