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

[tyhee]

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.

I'm one of those that said this trade is nothing. I wrote in disagreement with those that wrote that it is a great trade or that the Canucks' management did it with the Comets in mind (though a collateral result is that the Comets are helped, at least until the Canucks need to call up an 8th d-man.)

Saying it is nothing isn't the same thing as complaining about it. I'm fine with the trade. I'd also be fine if the Canucks chose another sensible option to avoid further cutting down their depth by losing a third player this season on waivers. Disagreeing about the reason for the trade or that it is a great trade isn't the same as a complaint. The Canucks' management had a problem they had to so something about. They did. It's what we should expect. It's fine. It's ok. It's even sensible.

In the grand scheme of things, it's completely unimportant. It exchanges one NHL press box d-man on an expiring contract for an AHL d-man who is NHL depth, also on an expiring contract and in exchange for that slight downgrade nets the lowest possible valued lottery ticket and saves about $350K of the owner's cash.

If that is above the bar that makes a "great trade" then we've truly descended into Management Hades.

 

[dm1371]

This trade would have been a blockbuster if it happened 10 years ago lol

 

[VanJack]

Wow! A total of 15 pages of posts on a trade involving a pending UFA d-man who couldn't get out the press-box and bump somebody on one of the worst bluelines in the entire NHL.

But wishing MDZ well with the Ducks. It's clear from his exit interviews that he's a stand-up guy who's well liked by his team-mates. You're always pulling for a guy like that to keep his career going

 

[iceburg]

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.

It could have an impact on the trade deadline but my sense is it will be minimal. Any trade of Sutter, Gudbranson, or Gagner would require salary retention. I wouldn't be shocked if Sutter is in play in order to open up a spot for Gaudette. I don't think they're trading Gudbranson. Gagner will be hard to move until there's a year or less on his contract - so summer or beyond. Next year though, if they move Sutter and Gagner, they are out of slots. Lu's contract is still haunting the club.

 

[thekernel]

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.

This "what could have been" and "you don't know this" nonsense in calling it a loss...I'm finding it hard to believe you aren't grasping at straws. Del Zotto was losing us games while we were in the middle of a playoff hunt, and that was with sheltered minutes. You could just as easily say he was devaluing himself, and that keeping him out of the lineup was the only reason we got anything at all -- it's that easy to be speculative and act as if it were an actually tangible argument.

 

[VanJack]

It could have an impact on the trade deadline but my sense is it will be minimal. Any trade of Sutter, Gudbranson, or Gagner would require salary retention. I wouldn't be shock if Sutter is in play in order to open up a spot for Gaudette. I don't think they're trading Gudbranson. Gagner will be hard to move until there's a year or less on his contract - so summer or beyond. Next year though, if they move Sutter and Ganer, they are out of slots.

It is a little disillusioning that both of Jimbo's 'foundational players' could be on the trade block. And with identical $4m a year contracts that he re-signed them to, they're like ankle bracelets made of anvils.

And it's still a little stunning to contemplate that if he could possibly deal both of them, it would actually be 'addition by subtraction', no matter who was coming back.

 

[alternate]

The way I see it...

Our low end depth has been moved from the left side to the right,
Utica has been provided a top 4 vet with 10 points in 22 AHL games this season,
We've saved money, both in cap hit and real dollars,
We acquired a draft pick,
We've made it so a young bubble prospect like Brisebois gets a look instead of a vet on his way out of the NHL filling in for injuries.

It is possible that MDZ would have returned a 5th at the deadline (that had been my expectation prior to the deal) but it would have meant waiving someone. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about Pouliot and Granlund, clearly Green doesn't agree with your takes. Like that or not, Benning should be making decisions that support his coach, not waiving/dumping guys the coach clearly thinks give him a better chance at winning. All this "put some lipstick on a pig" rationale is really just fantasy land stuff.

 

[4Twenty]

This "what could have been" and "you don't know this" nonsense in calling it a loss...I'm finding it hard to believe you aren't grasping at straws. Del Zotto was losing us games while we were in the middle of a playoff hunt, and that was with sheltered minutes. You could just as easily say he was devaluing himself, and that keeping him out of the lineup was the only reason we got anything at all -- it's that easy to be speculative and act as if it were an actually tangible argument.

Blaming one player for losses seems ridiculous, especially since Del Zotto had a greater than 50 GF% at 5 on 5. He wasn't hurting the team at even strength.

The team losing with Del Zotto in the lineup is a thing sure, I'll give you that, but Del Zotto "losing the team games" is poppycock, also "while we were in a playoff hunt" is nonsense. He's played one game since December 4th. They really only entered the "hunt" 3 weeks later. They won games without him, yes, but blaming him for losses is pretty ridiculous.

Also, could you explain how he was being "sheltered" Thanks/.


I just find it really funny that Del Zotto was the only dmen to play every game last year, and really did it without much complaints, but somehow this year he's been the reason for losses and sheltered, but he actually has substantially better metrics this season than last season, like not even close. He was actually playing better this year, just circumstances changed.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

You think MDZ was a better FA signing than Roussel?

Yes? Is this an argument?

Honestly, when I said arguably the best. I was thinking of Jay Beagle since Beagle has exceeded my expectations on a bottom six center. Roussel as far as I know hasn't done much in between bouncing in and out of the lineup. But I admit I haven't watched since December.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

As far as I know, Del Zotto getting stapled to the bench and being ejected out of the organization could be as much about off-ice issues as on-ice issues.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

The thing that the "asset management" folks rarely consider, and what would ultimately destroy any NHL franchise they tried to put together not in EA sports, is doing right by players and making sure that the environment in the room doesn't become toxic. Same thing happened with the Kassian trade. They would throw what is probably the most important part of team construction out the window to attempt and likely not succeed in moving up a couple spots in the 4th-7th rounds. What a joke.

Del Zotto wanted out, and various media commentators indicated that "the whole league knows who Michael Del Zotto is." Arguing that a goal for the 2017/2018 Canucks should have been "bumping up Michael Del Zotto's value by playing him more" is incredibly preposterous and suggests that those posters have completely lost the plot. You can't just pull the blindfold over NHL management teams in such a simple fashion - Gillis tried and all he got for it was Zack Kassian. Nobody was fooled.

Actually the more likely argument is that the Canucks might have succeeded in bumping up Del Zotto's value by playing him less.

Still a very good signing. Del Zotto played in all games last season, seemed great in the room, and got us a pick on the way out. Funny that the 7th is valueless when it comes our way, and yet if Benning had sent a 7th the other way, this forum would have likely crashed. Hilarious stuff.

 

[Laterade]

Who is saying the trade is a disaster?

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.

 

[StreetHawk]

It could have an impact on the trade deadline but my sense is it will be minimal. Any trade of Sutter, Gudbranson, or Gagner would require salary retention. I wouldn't be shocked if Sutter is in play in order to open up a spot for Gaudette. I don't think they're trading Gudbranson. Gagner will be hard to move until there's a year or less on his contract - so summer or beyond. Next year though, if they move Sutter and Gagner, they are out of slots. Lu's contract is still haunting the club.

Given where the Canucks are in the standings and this regime, they do not strike me as a team that will dump their vets.

Gagner has another year that is the biggest issue about moving him. So he’s not going. Outside of maybe Edler if the Canucks suck will they even consider moving him.

Sutter they still have time same with gudbranson.

 

[MS]

You seem to forget your own evaluation of Del Zott's play this season:

Yup he had a few bad games, especially early. And I was choked about that penalty against Montreal. I don’t think calling him a middling 3rd pairing defender or criticizing a bad turnover changes anything.

It’s funny that you searched my post history and cherry picked those, and clearly saw the rest of my posts, the majority of which are neutral to positive on Del Zotto, which you ignored completely :

Post-Game Talk: - GAME #36: Canucks 4, Oilers 2: VAN wins the Sam Gagner Invitational (and is back to .500 on W/L)

Post-Game Talk: - GAME #31: Alien 5 vs. Predators 3 | That happened. To St. Louis we go!

Post-Game Talk: - GAME #28: Canucks 3 vs. Golden Knights 4

Post-Game Talk: - GAME #28: Canucks 3 vs. Golden Knights 4

Post-Game Talk: - GAME #27: Canucks 1 vs. Kings 2 (OT)

So yeah, opinion is consistent. And so is your ability to invent and attack strawmen.

 

[F A N]

Yup he had a few bad games, especially early. And I was choked about that penalty against Montreal. I don’t think calling him a middling 3rd pairing defender or criticizing a bad turnover changes anything.

It’s funny that you searched my post history and cherry picked those, and clearly saw the rest of my posts, the majority of which are neutral to positive on Del Zotto, which you ignored completely :

Post-Game Talk: - GAME #36: Canucks 4, Oilers 2: VAN wins the Sam Gagner Invitational (and is back to .500 on W/L)

Post-Game Talk: - GAME #31: Alien 5 vs. Predators 3 | That happened. To St. Louis we go!

Post-Game Talk: - GAME #28: Canucks 3 vs. Golden Knights 4

Post-Game Talk: - GAME #28: Canucks 3 vs. Golden Knights 4

Post-Game Talk: - GAME #27: Canucks 1 vs. Kings 2 (OT)

So yeah, opinion is consistent. And so is your ability to invent and attack strawmen.

Umm... do you know what the word invent means? I simply quoted what you wrote.

The fact of the matter is that you called him a middling 3rd pairing defender and thought he deserved to be scratched, traded, or waived. But if what you're telling me is that you frequently get choked up and emotional and blurt out things you don't mean then fine. No argument there.

 

[iceburg]

It is a little disillusioning that both of Jimbo's 'foundational players' could be on the trade block. And with identical $4m a year contracts that he re-signed them to, they're like ankle bracelets made of anvils.

And it's still a little stunning to contemplate that if he could possibly deal both of them, it would actually be 'addition by subtraction', no matter who was coming back.

JB missed on both trades though McCann isn't exactly tearing up the league. A adding the 2nd hurts - and he signed him to twice as much as he's worth.

I really thought Sutter was going to be a decent addition but the verdict is in on that one as well...Should have kept Bonino.

But all that is old news. Sunk cost...whatever you want to call it. They should be looking to deal them both - especially Sutter because they have Gaudette waiting in the wings (he looked fantastic in the last Utica game) and some playoff bound team could pay a lot for Sutter at the trade deadline.

 

[MS]

Umm... do you know what the word invent means? I simply quoted what you wrote.

The fact of the matter is that you called him a middling 3rd pairing defender and thought he deserved to be scratched, traded, or waived. But if what you're telling me is that you frequently get choked up and emotional and blurt out things you don't mean then fine. No argument there.

Jesus Christ.

What pairing is a #5 defender on? How is calling someone a #5 defender one year and 3rd pairing defender the next inconsistent?

What, are you doing to ‘catch me out’ next by saying that someone was a 2nd liner one year and a top-6 forward the next?

Yes, he’s had bad games. Yes, I think Biega and Stecher should be in the lineup over him (but that all should be in the lineup over Gudbranson and Pouliot). Yes, I had a reactionary response to a stupid penalty that had nothing to do with his overall play (which I said at the time). None of that is inconsistent with my take on him last season.

And yeah, searching through my post history, finding 2 negative posts about Del Zotto, seeing another dozen that were positive and just ignoring them, and then trying to reframe those into a position and argument I’ve never had is making things up. And it’s pathetic.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

JB missed on both trades though McCann isn't exactly tearing up the league. A adding the 2nd hurts - and he signed him to twice as much as he's worth.

Original mistake there was the McCann draft pick which stunk to the high heavens of the previous regime's drafting philosophy: "2-way" centres from the OHL. I doubt Benning ever liked McCann much, and Bartkowski's mom calling him a little **** indicates to some degree things going on behind the scenes there. There were media reports Canucks could have gotten a 2nd for Gudbranson last trade deadline, indicating that the 2nd originally given up will likely be recuperated at some point, but they chose to hold onto him and see if his play improved. Jury's still out on that one.

I really thought Sutter was going to be a decent addition but the verdict is in on that one as well...Should have kept Bonino.

How would we have "kept" Bonino exactly? Bonino's contract was expiring in a couple years and there would be no reason for an American player like that to have loyalty to a Canadian bottom feeder. The most important part of the Sutter trade was the agreed upon extension - ensuring the Canucks could fill their horrific centre depth for the long term, and hopefully recuperate serious assets further down the road by trading Sutter. Pretty good asset management if you ask me. Nevermind that Sutter and Bonino have scored at similar rates on top of all that since the trade.

 

[timw33]

Jesus Christ.

What pairing is a #5 defender on? How is calling someone a #5 defender one year and 3rd pairing defender the next inconsistent?

What, are you doing to ‘catch me out’ next by saying that someone was a 2nd liner one year and a top-6 forward the next?

Yes, he’s had bad games. Yes, I think Biega and Stecher should be in the lineup over him (but that all should be in the lineup over Gudbranson and Pouliot). Yes, I had a reactionary response to a stupid penalty that had nothing to do with his overall play (which I said at the time). None of that is inconsistent with my take on him last season.

And yeah, searching through my post history, finding 2 negative posts about Del Zotto, seeing another dozen that were positive and just ignoring them, and then trying to reframe those into a position and argument I’ve never had is making things up. And it’s pathetic.

Admit it, he got you. I regret to inform you that you are cancelled, MS.

*F A N dabs*

 

[F A N]

Admit it, he got you. I regret to inform you that you are cancelled, MS.

*F A N dabs*

This! *dabs*

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

There were media reports Canucks could have gotten a 2nd for Gudbranson last trade deadline, indicating that the 2nd originally given up will likely be recuperated at some point, but they chose to hold onto him and see if his play improved. Jury's still out on that one.

God I love Canucks fans. Gudbranson is the clear-cut worst defenseman in the NHL for going on 3 seasons? "Jury's still out!"

 

[MS]

Admit it, he got you. I regret to inform you that you are cancelled, MS.

*F A N dabs*

It’s even worse than the time I called Tanner Kero a $600k player and he triumphantly called me out that he was actually a $700k player (and of course ignored the entire actual argument) and I nearly had to leave here in shame.

*sob*

 

[Ryan Miller*]

God I love Canucks fans. Gudbranson is the clear-cut worst defenseman in the NHL for going on 3 seasons? "Jury's still out!"

God I love posts that suggest an elementary school level of reading comprehension. Might I suggest actually reading others' posts? I'll break it down for you to make it easy.

My post states that Canucks management thought that Gudbranson's play might improve from last season likely through a couple factors: less injury issues and a greater comfort level with the team.

Whether his play has in fact improved from last season is what my post states the jury is still out on. Both seasons have been equally poor in my opinion, with stretches of competent play interspersed.

 

[iceburg]

Original mistake there was the McCann draft pick which stunk to the high heavens of the previous regime's drafting philosophy: "2-way" centres from the OHL. I doubt Benning ever liked McCann much, and Bartkowski's mom calling him a little **** indicates to some degree things going on behind the scenes there. There were media reports Canucks could have gotten a 2nd for Gudbranson last trade deadline, indicating that the 2nd originally given up will likely be recuperated at some point, but they chose to hold onto him and see if his play improved. Jury's still out on that one.

How would we have "kept" Bonino exactly? Bonino's contract was expiring in a couple years and there would be no reason for an American player like that to have loyalty to a Canadian bottom feeder. The most important part of the Sutter trade was the agreed upon extension - ensuring the Canucks could fill their horrific centre depth for the long term, and hopefully recuperate serious assets further down the road by trading Sutter. Pretty good asset management if you ask me. Nevermind that Sutter and Bonino have scored at similar rates on top of all that since the trade.

I really don't want to get into the past contracts...these have been discussed way too much on these boards. I prefer to call it water under the bridge and focus on best moves going forward.
But, since I was the one that brought it up, Bonino was less expensive and had an additional year on his contract. And if they had paid him an inflated salary like they did Sutter, he would have stayed. Both were UFA at expiry. The big incentive for Sutter to stay was that they paid him way more than any other team would have paid him. Bonino would have done the same analysis.

 

[Javaman]

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.

Just to clarify, my panicky jolt was caused by the thought that Benning is looking to be a buyer at the TDL. It was not at all caused by the Canucks' actual cap situation.