Chairman Maouth
Retired Staff
A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?
Not sign him? Or if you have to, sign him for something approximating his value? Or wait until free agency and if he gets no bites, low-ball him?A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?
A "show me" contract like he gave Tanev? I think that was a realistic option. Maybe "overpay" him a bit more for the short-term (who really cares that much on a one year deal?) so as to to tick him off too much on the short-term deal. It's not like he did much while wearing the Canuck uniform to earn that raise & term.A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?
A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?
A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?
Yup. If no team wanted to give up anything for an injured Gudbranson (which I doubt), then you don't hand him this idiotic contract and spend the money in better ways.let him walk because he sucks. what kind of silly q is that
A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?
I disagree. Mitchell had suffered a bad concussion, but Willie "indicated the Canucks did not meet his financial terms as "economics" got in the way."Astonishingly, if they even had to pay an extra 200k/season after doing their due diligence vs just signing him when they did, I'd actually argue that it would be "worth" the extra price. Arguing otherwise would be hindsight; similar to how people ***** about Gillis not bringing back Willie Mitchell, even though it was 50/50 that he'd never play again. The team made the right call there doing their due diligence to wait and see how that would turn out...unfortunately, that one didn't work out and Willie walked.
Gilligan offered him I believe a one year deal - Kings offered him a multi-year deal (they had > $6 million in cap space available before signing Mitchell so they could easily afford to take that chance with the longer term deal).I disagree. Mitchell had suffered a bad concussion, but Willie "indicated the Canucks did not meet his financial terms as "economics" got in the way."
1. He actually is not, our D is better when he is actually not playing.I think his best option was to sign him.
1. Like it or not, Gudbranson is definitely one of our six best defenders and I would argue one of our top four. Replacing him will not be easy. You could roll the dice and try signing someone in the offseason, but you're likely overpaying based on the fact that this team is rebuilding...and that's if someone bites. Trading for someone? Well, that would cost some good picks and or prospects. Look what Calgary paid for Hamonic.
2. 4mil is a solid number for him. A touch high, but then you get no no-trade protection and a shorter term. Both those things were worth paying the bit extra.
3. This also gives you more flexibility going forward and if Gudbranson recovers (likely), you now have a good trade piece. Or if he's playing well, you can look to move Tanev at the deadline.
His contract comes off the books before they have to worry about Pettersson's, and whoever we draft this year's, next contract.
They don't have to protect him in an expansion draft if they don't want to.
They can trade him.
I disagree. Mitchell had suffered a bad concussion, but Willie "indicated the Canucks did not meet his financial terms as "economics" got in the way."
Mitchell also stated
"that he started feeling better in mid-June, but rather than sign with a club on the first day of free agency on July 1, he delayed his decision until he could prove to teams that he was healthy enough to resume his career.
While many NHLers were relaxing in June, the Port McNeill, B.C., native did "two-a-days" which included bag skates in the morning and off-ice workouts in the afternoon with a personal trainer.
He also completed the usual pre-season fitness tests at the UBC, where he has been skating recently with former Canuck teammates, other NHLers and junior-age players."
Kings, Willie Mitchell agree to deal
After Edler and Tanev our defencemen might have trouble cracking a mediocre NHL bottom pairing so you're not saying much.I think his best option was to sign him.
1. Like it or not, Gudbranson is definitely one of our six best defenders and I would argue one of our top four. Replacing him will not be easy. You could roll the dice and try signing someone in the offseason, but you're likely overpaying based on the fact that this team is rebuilding...and that's if someone bites. Trading for someone? Well, that would cost some good picks and or prospects. Look what Calgary paid for Hamonic.
2. 4mil is a solid number for him. A touch high, but then you get no no-trade protection and a shorter term. Both those things were worth paying the bit extra.
3. This also gives you more flexibility going forward and if Gudbranson recovers (likely), you now have a good trade piece. Or if he's playing well, you can look to move Tanev at the deadline.
His contract comes off the books before they have to worry about Pettersson's, and whoever we draft this year's, next contract.
They don't have to protect him in an expansion draft if they don't want to.
They can trade him.
The best option was to never sign him in the first place but once that mistake is made, I guess out of some sense of loyalty give him a low dollar one year contract to see what his recovery actually is.
I was trying to be nice.....an awful lot of sensitive egos around here.....They didn't even have to go that far!
I was trying to be nice.....an awful lot of sensitive egos around here.....
No...didn't mean you at all. Keep up the good fight.Apologies if my post came across as aggressive towards you; I agree with you completely. I'm simply saying they could have been even nicer and it still would've made more sense than what actually happened.
Not re-signing or not extending an injured player would not be a wise decision based on future player acquisitions.Not sign him? Or if you have to, sign him for something approximating his value? Or wait until free agency and if he gets no bites, low-ball him?
In what world are you forced to sign a player whose performance has been a negative to the team? At a raise and for term, no less?
He can still be traded at any time. He has no trade protection. And a trading partner may prefer him on a three year deal as opposed to a one year deal. But again, whether he's on a one year deal like you suggest or a three year, he can still be traded either way.2) Offer him another 1 year deal for the same AAV if you really feel as though the team should get something for him. Trade him for the best offer available next season, as soon as possible, even if that offer is substantially less than what the team paid for him.
Again, very poor optics that could hurt the Canucks in the future.- Play hardball, knowing full well that once the injury is revealed (and it would be) the market for him logically goes down further, and maybe you can squeeze him down another couple hundred k.
He would have little value at the draft while on a six month recovery from surgery.- Wait for his injury to be clarified by the medical staff/publicly, and see what sort of value he has at the draft. If no tangible offer (in their mind) materializes, offer him the same contract then.
Again, two months into a six month recovery means absolutely nothing. Even five months means nothing. What does mean something is how he performs on the ice post surgery.- Wait two months. Do absolutely nothing else different, just ensure that you're committing three years to a player who is recovering well post-surgery rather than an injured player pre-surgery. They hold full control of his rights until July 1st.
If you think I ask silly questions, don't bother replying.let him walk because he sucks. what kind of silly q is that
Again, very poor optics that could hurt the Canucks in the future.
He would have little value at the draft while on a six month recovery from surgery.
Again, two months into a six month recovery means absolutely nothing. Even five months means nothing. What does mean something is how he performs on the ice post surgery.
That's a weird statement. The factor for players resigning usually comes down to pay and term, not the history of other players not getting resigned for {insert reason}. For example, Boeser is not going to look at Gubranson not resigning because he was injured as a reason for him not wanting to resign. Give him a reasonable number with term and he will sign it and he will not give a shit how Gubranson was treated.Not re-signing or not extending an injured player would not be a wise decision based on future player acquisitions.
A guy with a severe shoulder injury is not going to be more attractive on a 3 year contract, especially when he is being paid like a top 4 guy. He has to prove that he is a top4 guy and his shoulder is not impacting his physical play and show that his injury is not chronic. That's a lot of things to prove before he has value.He can still be traded at any time. He has no trade protection. And a trading partner may prefer him on a three year deal as opposed to a one year deal. But again, whether he's on a one year deal like you suggest or a three year, he can still be traded either way.
Poor management decisions is also bad optics.Again, very poor optics that could hurt the Canucks in the future.
little value > retaining him with a big contract with all the risks associated with it.He would have little value at the draft while on a six month recovery from surgery.
Not re-signing or not extending an injured player would not be a wise decision based on future player acquisitions.
I would rather play for a team that I don't think will try and screw me over when I'm injured and at a low point in my career.How? If you were a player, would you rather play for the shmuck that signs whatever you put in front of him, or the one that negotiates a tough but fair deal?
Those would have to be microscopic increments. All I can do is repeat my same point. He will have little value before or after the surgery until he actually steps on the ice again for the Canucks. No one is going to offer anything of real value for him now or months from now - not until he proves he's healthy and can play in NHL games again.Sure. But a three-month recovery period means incrementally more than the assessment pre-surgery. It at least gives them full clarification on the injury, allows the surgeon to give the clearance that the operation was completed successfully, and places him halfway on the timeline to a full recovery. Whether you think that's worth very little or a lot, it means more than "nothing". Why give that up?
I think you misunderstood me.That's a weird statement. The factor for players resigning usually comes down to pay and term, not the history of other players not getting resigned for {insert reason}. For example, Boeser is not going to look at Gubranson not resigning because he was injured as a reason for him not wanting to resign. Give him a reasonable number with term and he will sign it and he will not give a **** how Gubranson was treated.
That actually plays into my point. Three years is more time to do that than one. But realistically, he has a year or two to prove it where Benning has the possibility of making the original Gudbranson deal a little more palatable. He can thrive as Canuck, or he can be traded at any time; early, for peanuts, or later for potentially more. The three year contract gives Benning more options.A guy with a severe shoulder injury is not going to be more attractive on a 3 year contract, especially when he is being paid like a top 4 guy. He has to prove that he is a top4 guy and his shoulder is not impacting his physical play and show that his injury is not chronic. That's a lot of things to prove before he has value.
If there's any nonsense here it's coming from you because I said optics, not obligated.What? You think any time a player gets injured that his team is essentially obligated to re-sign him? What kind of nonsense is that?
Not really. If he's playing well - of course he can be traded...but why would he trade him if that's the case? If he stays the same - that three year deal will be a sort of NTC by default (nobody would want to trade for an injury prone player/a player with shoulder issues that has to play a physical style to be effective - at least not without getting something in return to take that risk).He can be traded at any time; early, for peanuts, or later for potentially more. The three year contract gives Benning more options.