Grading the off season moves

[Hit the post]

$6m was highend goalie money a decade ago, now it buys you a 4/5 defensman in UFA.

420Canuck is Tyler Myers for real?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

You again make a bunch statements that aren't support by anything and often contradictory.

1. You say we have to assume (basically guess) that Benning consulted goalie coach and came to the conclusion they were going with Demko - you provide no evidence for this. And if they had made that decision why did they continue to negotiate with Markstrom??? I have a hard time wrapping my head around an assumption (by your own admission) stated as fact. You have no idea if Benning consulted with Clark and then made a decision that they were dumping Markstrom and going with Demko.

Here again you make the absurd argument that b/c something happened it shows intent to make it happen or that b/c Markstrom ended up in Calgary the Canucks had intended to dump him and go with Demko . It's as inane as saying the Canucks planned to lose to Vegas in the playoffs with the logic "well it happened so they must have intended to do so". Most likely the situation with Markstrom was a fluid one where the team was trying to keep Markstorm (and that's what they said) as the following articles as well as every other article on the topic points out.

Canucks hope to re-sign Markstrom: report

'We want him back': Canucks trying to re-sign goalie Jacob Markstrom - TSN.ca

Moreover, if as you say, of course without support, they had definitely decided to go with Demko, then why didn't they trade the rights to Markstrom so as to recoup something. Maybe if they had done this with a team in the east they might kept him away from direct rivals like Calgary or Edmonton which were both hot after him. Probably because they were still in active negotiations with him. Right?

Ultimately you provide no evidence to support they shut down negotiations b/c of the NMC or because of advise from Clark. Seemed they were negotiating with Markstrom right up to the time he signed with Calgary.

2. You say you never said they gave up on Markstrom before the Calgary deal. But that is exactly what you said. You maintain Benning sat down with Clark and made the decision to go with Demko. Well if Benning made this decision it had to be prior to the Calgary deal since once Markstrom signed with Calgary there was no decision to be made. Or are you trying to say that once Markstrom signed in Calgary then Benning sat down with Clark and decided they would go with Demko over Markstrom??? Whole thing is a contradiction and silly.

3. You say that Benning never backed himself into corner. Then you openly contradict this by saying Canucks were unable to offer the NMC. Well it was Benning who put himself in that position. Had he moved Demko during last season he could have gone with the NMC to Markstrom. If he had gone with a longer deal with Markstrom in the first place (and some suggested this at the time) he would have had Markstrom for more years and beyond the ED. If he had traded Markstrom earlier he could have got a good return and not lost Markstrom for nothing. You may argue against these options and I might agree with you but Benning had choices which might have prevented him from being put in a position where he simply lost his MVP and got nothing in return. He was cornered by past decisions and your emphasis on him not being able to offer the NMC is ironically evidence of this.

I would also maintain that the limited cap space was a factor. It didn't just come down to the NMC. With greater space he could have offered more money rather even less, apparently, than the Flames were offering. That might have worked. And not having the cap space to do this was a direct result of the many mistakes Benning made with other players and contracts.

4. You say money wasn't the issue. Sure it was. Markstrom wanted to be paid. He wasn't taking much less to stay even if they only gave him an NMC. Various sources point this out


'We want him back': Canucks trying to re-sign goalie Jacob Markstrom - TSN.ca -

- quote from article

"Keeping both Markstrom and Demko on the roster could be expensive, however, and with a flat salary cap next season, Benning will have to do some creative juggling to keep the tandem intact."

-quote from article

Canucks news: The latest on contract negotiations with Jacob Markstrom

- quote from article

But keeping Markstrom will reportedly cost the Canucks one pretty penny. Rick Dhaliwal of TSN 1040 explained to Thomas Drance on Thursday that Markstrom “won’t accept less than” $6 million annually. If the Canucks aren’t willing to give that to Markstrom, Dhaliwal suggests “he’ll easily get it on the open market.”

Canucks: Why letting Jacob Markstrom walk isn’t a bad idea

quote from article

According to TSN insider Darren Dreger, Markstrom’s next contract could possibly have an annual salary of at least $6 million a season.


Nothing against him, but the term and AAV must be of fair value. And trust me, the figure mentioned above is definitely fair value considering his remarkable play, but the Canucks just can’t afford it.

You saying that money wasn't anything of a factor , that it was just the NMC, is contradicted by some of the most best insiders in hockey. Both term and money were factors and if you can't recognize that Benning backed himself into corner here then I have to believe that you can't think rationally when it comes to defending Benning. Sorry if that is raining on you one man parade for Benning.

You lose your MVP, your best player for nothing you screwed up somewhere and Benning certainly did. Luckily he got Holtby to mitigate the damage and he deserves congratulations there. If he hadn't got Holtby, the screw up Benning made might even be apparent to you.

1.You want me to give you evidence that Jim Benning consulted his goaltending expert (about a backup plan) prior to possibly spending 10's of millions of dollars.and making a key goaltending decision for the franchise..?..Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

2.Where did I say the Canucks 'gave up' on Markstrom 'before the Calgary deal...?...I asked you this in my last post...Quote me where I apparently said that..I'll wait.

3."Well it was Benning who put himself in that position. Had he moved Demko during last season he could have gone with the NMC to Markstrom."...you........
They had no intention of trading Thatcher Demko (unless you have inside information)...even less so after the playoffs...A lot of the sports media say that letting Markstrom (and Tanev) go was the prudent move by Benning..It wasn't a 'black eye' for the organization at all (unlike losing Toffoli which was)...

4.Your quotes merely tell us that Markstrom was going to get paid on UFA day (tell us something we didnt know?)..He didnt jump ship over $500K a season..The money was close to the Flames (they sealed it with an extra year)...Again, the sticking point was the NMC..as Markstrom himself indicated


Markstrom: It was huge to get a NMC & have a home for the next 6 years.

 

[DonnyNucker]

1.You want me to give you evidence that Jim Benning consulted his goaltending expert prior to possibly spending 10's of millions of dollars.and making a key goaltending decision for the franchise..?..Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

2.Where did I say the Canucks 'gave up' on Markstrom 'before the Calgary deal...?...I asked you this in my last post...Quote me where I apparently said that..I'll wait.

3."Well it was Benning who put himself in that position. Had he moved Demko during last season he could have gone with the NMC to Markstrom."...you........
They had no intention of trading Thatcher Demko (unless you have inside information)...even less so after the playoffs...A lot of the sports media say that letting Markstrom (and Tanev) go was the prudent move by Benning..It wasn't a 'black eye' for the organization at all (unlike losing Toffoli which was)...

4.Your quotes merely tell us that Markstrom was going to get paid on UFA day (tell us something we didnt know?)..He didnt jump ship over $500K a season..The money was close to the Flames (they sealed it with an extra year)...Again, the sticking point was the NMC..as Markstrom himself indicated


Markstrom: It was huge to get a NMC & have a home for the next 6 years.

He is full of Sh!t. He would be freaking out if we moved Demko and gave Markstrom his brutal contract.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

He is full of Sh!t. He would be freaking out if we moved Demko and gave Markstrom his brutal contract.

...and given a 31 year old Markstrom a Louie Eriksson type deal..?

 

[Fatass]

...and given a 31 year old Markstrom a Louie Eriksson type deal..?

Ya, who needs to resign their MVP, Vezina caliber goalie.
Luckily for us we didn’t give up many shots or scoring chances, and Marky wasn’t needed to steal any wins.

 

[DonnyNucker]

...and given a 31 year old Markstrom a Louie Eriksson type deal..?

The Markstrom and Tanev deals will haunt calgary for years. They better win a cup in the next two years or it will be disastrous. Reminds me a bit of when we tried to extend the Sedin era. Calgary is in a better spot but at least we only had one Loui contract and not two

 

[DonnyNucker]

Ya, who needs to resign their MVP, Vezina caliber goalie.
Luckily for us we didn’t give up many shots or scoring chances, and Marky wasn’t needed to steal any wins.

So Larry, given the option, would you offer that contract to Marky?

no of course you wouldn’t. But you would meltdown if we traded Demko and commited to Marky for 6 years w a NMC

 

[Fatass]

So Larry, given the option, would you offer that contract to Marky?

no of course you wouldn’t. But you would meltdown if we traded Demko and commited to Marky for 6 years w a NMC

I’m not on the team, but if I was (Miller for example) I’d be frustrated with the “reset” of not signing Marky.

 

[DonnyNucker]

I’m not on the team, but if I was (Miller for example) I’d be frustrated with the “reset” of not signing Marky.

I’m sure Miller would rather have Schmidt, Hamonic and Holtby than Marky, Tin man and Leivo. Regardless, I asked you not Miller. For what it’s worth, Miller has been raving about Schmidt all training camp

 

[Fatass]

I’m sure Miller would rather have Schmidt, Hamonic and Holtby than Marky, Tin man and Leivo. Regardless, I asked you not Miller. For what it’s worth, Miller has been raving about Schmidt all training camp

Miller is a good teammate. Imo, we are not as good right now as we were before the offseason. Losing Marky is huge. I’m waiting to see Schmidt, and how he fits. We didn’t replace Tofu.
The easy math here is one (Schmidt over Tanev) step forward, and two steps (losing Marky and Tofu) back. Considering the totality of the equation, how in the heck aren’t we worse?

 

[DonnyNucker]

Miller is a good teammate. Imo, we are not as good right now as we were before the offseason. Losing Marky is huge. I’m waiting to see Schmidt, and how he fits. We didn’t replace Tofu.
The easy math here is one (Schmidt over Tanev) step forward, and two steps (losing Marky and Tofu) back. Considering the totality of the equation, how in the heck aren’t we worse?

You are off topic. As is this whole thread. It’s grading the off-season moves, not grading past transactions that have caused cap issues. Was passing on Markstrom and re allocating that cap to improve the defence and roll with Demko a wise move? Imo 100%.

In regards to are we a better team? I don’t know. Our D is certainly better, I think the forwards are a wash. Toffoli played 10 games and our young core should offset that minimal loss. So the team is better but if Demko and Holtby cant provide league average goaltending or better then yes we likely regress. Too many variables to have confidence either way at this stage

 

[Fatass]

You are off topic. As is this whole thread. It’s grading the off-season moves, not grading past transactions that have caused cap issues. Was passing on Markstrom and re allocating that cap to improve the defence and roll with Demko a wise move? Imo 100%

Clearly (imo) we are worse. We lost our star goalie, and top RW! My goodness, how is that anything but horrid?

 

[DonnyNucker]

Clearly (imo) we are worse. We lost our star goalie, and top RW! My goodness, how is that anything but horrid?

Well we didn’t lose our top RW and we improved our D. Agree to disagree

 

[Fatass]

Well we didn’t lose our top RW and we improved our D. Agree to disagree

I’m hoping you’re right, and after we make the playoffs, you revisit this discussion and make fun of my posts!!!

 

[dedutchhockey]

I think we improved and we didn’t extend ourselves to bad contracts that will effect our ability to go all in a couple of year.

very good off season

 

[David71]

Getting a 28 year Toffoli and a good chunk of capspace still seems like poor rate of exchange for Thatcher Demko..my 2 cents.

I also have some concerns about Markstroms health moving forward, he broke down twice in 2020...I think he has some underlying issues (groin..?)

sorta like roberto luongo.? he was never the same. and now hes retired.

 

[VanJack]

How to grade the Canucks off-season moves?.....well for starters, a lot of the personnel changes were basically forced on them....no real cap room to sign Tanev or Tofoli; couldn't match the Flames to retain Markstrom; and obviously moved on from guys like Stecher, Leivo and Fantenberg, because they felt they could replace those them from within the organization.

So Schmidt basically replaces Tanev; Hamonic and Juolevi replace Stecher and Fantenberg; guys like Hawryluk or MacEwen will replace Leivo; and they brought in Holtby to support Demko, who's being penciled in as the No. #1 goalie.

So the verdict?.....after a disastrous start to the off-season, the Canucks have plugged the holes as best they could. They may not be any better, but I don't see them being a whole lot worse.

 

[Sneezy]

Ya, who needs to resign their MVP, Vezina caliber goalie.
Luckily for us we didn’t give up many shots or scoring chances, and Marky wasn’t needed to steal any wins.

Larry would you be happy if Nucks signed the exact same deal for Markstrom?

Assume we didn't have the cap issues the team does but assume they are still dealing like every other team with a flat cap.

 

[Fatass]

Larry would you be happy if Nucks signed the exact same deal for Markstrom?

Assume we didn't have the cap issues the team does but assume they are still dealing like every other team with a flat cap.

We lost our MVP, Vezina level goalie, and now don’t have anywhere near to his level of player in nets. We knew Marky was going to play great, and are only hoping one of Holtby or Demko can play near to that level.
Regardless of cap issues, or expansion draft concerns, I’d 100% want my Vezina level goalie under contract.
What was Demko’s trade value this off season?

 

[Tables of Stats]

I disagree that Demko is "great", I also disagree that letting Markstrom go means they're giving Demko his shot, they signed a veteran starter, just like the Ryan Miller deal, to start ahead of the "goalie of the future". I also don't think it's fair to call Markstrom's deal awful. $6m was highend goalie money a decade ago, now it buys you a 4/5 defensman in UFA. I'm not that concerned with $6m/year and if the Canucks had more available cap space he could potentially have been retained at a lesser term with more salary. But I know that won't fly here, because if he signed for 6x6, then that means that's the only thing he'd sign for based on some of the logic that abounds here. I also don't understand how someone can say before a puck is dropped that they made the "right moves" and that's the bottom line....The moves look reasonable given the state of the team, but I'm not sure you can say for sure they are "right".

Just grading one offseason, leaves so much out, since so much that's happened leading up to it dictated how it would go, rather than it looking like part of a long term plan.

Yeah, a 6 x 6 deal is chump change which is why we all love Eriksson's contract, right?

 

[mathonwy]

Signing Markstrom to an awful deal is far more risky than giving Demko his shot

What do you base this assertion on?

Hope and faith?

It's gotta be hope and faith.

 

[mathonwy]

...and given a 31 year old Markstrom a Louie Eriksson type deal..?

And you are equivocating Jacob Markstrom with Loui Eriksson?

Do you know how stupid you sound?

 

[DonnyNucker]

What do you base this assertion on?

Hope and faith?

It's gotta be hope and faith.

No I’m a smart guy. Only an idiot would sign a 31 year old goalie to that contract. Frankly I’m basing it on common sense. If Demko falters you fall back on Holtby and have loads of cap space in two years. Don’t be scared of change taco

 

[mathonwy]

The Markstrom and Tanev deals will haunt calgary for years. They better win a cup in the next two years or it will be disastrous. Reminds me a bit of when we tried to extend the Sedin era. Calgary is in a better spot but at least we only had one Loui contract and not two

Based on what?

Certainly not Marky and Tanev's play.

So hope and faith again.

Hope and faith that both player's games will fall into the cellar once they've left Vancouver.

I don't understand.

Jimbo bloats the f*** out of our cap structure with overpaid age gappers resulting in an inability (disability) to resign our core defensive players and Jimbo gets applauded for his "incompetence".

Sports is weird.

 

[mathonwy]

No I’m a smart guy. Only an idiot would sign a 31 year old goalie to that contract. Frankly I’m basing it on common sense. If Demko falters you fall back on Holtby and have loads of cap space in two years. Don’t be scared of change taco

Only a fool changes up the defensive core that got them to the dance.