Seems like a typical Canucks trade thread to me.This trade is completely inconsequential in both directions, to a degree where it's not even really worth talking about, IMO.
Del Zotto has close to zero value, Schenn has close to zero value, and a 7th has close to zero value.
Why has it been discussed for eleven pages? Are we THAT desperate to get to declare something a win or a loss?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
he was never going to be worth a 4th or a 5th even to the most desperate.
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.
People are saying this trade is a disaster? For real?
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.
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.
So then this trade is already a failure to you, right?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.
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.
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!
But we have only on TWO now so were fine NO need to panic palIt'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)
But we have only on TWO now so were fine NO need to panic pal
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.
Del Zotto just atrocious.
Sadly, based on icetime it'll be Stecher that comes out instead of Del Zotto or Gudbranson or Pouliot.
Stecher continues to excel, even despite being saddled with Del Zotto.
That turnover just now by Del Zotto ... Jesus.
that play by Del Zotto will be one of the 5 stupidest plays by any player in the NHL this year when you consider the score, situation, and how egregious the foul was. Skated 30 feet out of position to mug a rookie 3-4 seconds after he played the puck in a 2-2 tie with 3 minutes left. Should be scratched, traded, or waived for that sort of selfish idiocy. Played a solid game otherwise but just unacceptable.
Michael Del Zotto - middling 3rd pairing defender.
Luke Schenn is dog ****.
Yeah you too Wax ManAs that other guy said, never change.
Yeah, I never criticized Del Zotto. Arguably Benning's best FA signing for better or worse.