Grading the off season moves

[Nazzlind]

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

Vegas: "Yo Benning, you want Schmidt for a 3rd?"

Benning: "No thanks, Only a fool changes up the defensive core that got them to the dance."

 

[mathonwy]

Vegas: "Yo Benning, you want Schmidt for a 3rd?"

Benning: "No thanks, Only a fool changes up the defensive core that got them to the dance."

More like...

Benning: "No thanks. I'm still holding out for OEL. SEMPAI NOTICE ME!!"

 

[Nazzlind]

More like...

Benning: "No thanks. I'm still holding out for OEL. SEMPAI NOTICE ME!!"

so you're standing by your statement I quoted?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Only grading the "moves", not the status quo; ie. holding onto players or signing prospects.

Markstrom: A
Don't sign old goalies to big/long contracts. Over 30, no thanks, needs to be short term like Holtby, because goalies can fall off a cliff at any moment past 30.

Holtby: B+
Very good 1a/b with Demko at a reasonable price. Smart aquisition with Kraken draft in mind.

Tanev: B
I think he's got a couple years left being a solid D but was smart to avoid that contract. Anything more than 3 would be a mistake.


Schmidt: A+
Maybe Benning's best trade to bring in a player from day 1. I say that because how negative the Miller trade was at first.

Stecher: C+
I liked the kid, but he wasn't going to be more than 3rd pair depth. At the time it was concerning without knowing what the 3rd pair might look like. Looks a lot better now with....

Harmonic: B+
An upgrade on Stecher at what should be a great price.

- Toffoli: C+
Would have loved to bring him back if we had the room. But not wild about the contract MTL gave him. Don't think he's as big a hole to fill as soon seem to think. He was barely a Canuck last season.

 

[DonnyNucker]

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

This is the dummest post I’ve seen in awhile

 

[Captain Bowie]

And you are equivocating Jacob Markstrom with Loui Eriksson?

Do you know how stupid you sound?

I mean Loui Eriksson wasn't Loui Eriksson until he was Loui Eriksson.

 

[mathonwy]

This is the dummest post I’ve seen in awhile

Actually POM's post equivocating Markstrom with Eriksson is pretty dum IMO.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Based on what?

Certainly not Marky and Tanev's play.

Tanev has been declining for years. He was below average at defending last season:



If the graph doesn't tell the story than I'd suggest looking at how often he spent hemmed in our zone.

Markstrom is past 30, had injury concerns last season, including in the playoffs, and asked for a 6-year contract. That has the potential to be the worst contract on our team if he loses even a fraction due to his groin issues. Not to mention that goalies are unpredictable in terms of their season to season play so many analysts consider it a bad idea to give them money and term.

You may not have seen the issues with signing these players to their deals but that doesn't mean they weren't there.

If that doesn't do it for you, what makes you think that running back the same team minus Toffoli was going to be stronger than the team we had last season? We were poor defensively last season, how did you expect that to change if the only move we made was swapping Stetcher for a rookie?

 

[DonnyNucker]

Actually POM's post equivocating Markstrom with Eriksson is pretty dum IMO.

Didn’t see that one. I suspect he meant Marky’s contract won’t age well. And it won’t. But yes, the Loui contract is the worst contract in canuck history

 

[Captain Bowie]

Didn’t see that one. I suspect he meant Marky’s contract won’t age well. And it won’t. But yes, the Loui contract is the worst contract in canuck history

Not unless the league finds a way to punish us for it until 2028.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

And you are equivocating Jacob Markstrom with Loui Eriksson?

Do you know how stupid you sound?

For sure....Louie currently is 10 times the player Marky is....

 

[orcatown]

What I want evidence for is your statement - Clearly, they (Ian Clark and management) chose Demko. the younger keeper..

If this was the case then why did Benning say he was trying to retain Markstrom. That it was a priority. If they had decided to go with youth (as you say) why go through the pretense of even negotiating with Markstrom. Basically you're saying that Benning was not negotiating in good faith with Markstrom since they had previously decided to go with youth.

And, as you say, they had decided to go with the younger Demko, long term, what has the NMC got to do with anything? Demko is an RFA next year and if he establishes himself as an starter then you are going have to pay him. If they had signed Markstrom then how could they pay Demko next year? Markstrom, NMC or not, could not be signed if they intended to keep Demko long term. Given the fact the cap is not going up, there is no way they could kept both. Do you understand this and can you see how it undermines your insistence that the NMC was only important consideration?

Thus money was a concern as well. They couldn't pay Markstrom this year if they intended to pay Demko next year.

I think it much more likely that Benning did want to keep Markstrom. But very typically he hadn't been proactive and now found himself boxed in. He couldn't pay both Demko and Markstrom long term, and he kept if Markstrom he would lose Demko either b/c there was no money to pay him (especially with the Hughes and Pettersson contracts coming up) or because of the ED. He then tried to move people like Eriksson to get some space (as though that was going to happen) but that led to nothing. So then he tried to low ball Markstrom and get him to drop the NMC hoping loyalty might get Markstrom to comply. Of course, it didn't and any planning by Benning went up in smoke. Benning was the victim of not thinking ahead and messing up his cap.

As things turned out, things might have luckily worked out the best for the team. I wanted them to keep Demko and did not want to overpay Markstrom. But I doubt this was result of careful planning by Benning but instead that he kind of stubbled into it. And, in the end he lost his MVP and best player for absolutely nothing. I don't see how you can praise him for that.

Note you think Calgary contract with Markstrom is akin to Canucks contract with Eriksson. Got that booked and we'll return to this to see how correct you are.

 

[Tables of Stats]

What I want evidence for is your statement - Clearly, they (Ian Clark and management) chose Demko. the younger keeper..

If this was the case then why did Benning say he was trying to retain Markstrom. That it was a priority. If they had decided to go with youth (as you say) why go through the pretense of even negotiating with Markstrom. Basically you're saying that Benning was not negotiating in good faith with Markstrom since they had previously decided to go with youth.

You can have meetings that explore both options and choose the one that best fits what actually happens at the negotiating table. In light of this, what part of them wanting to retain Markstrom (for the right price, term, and lack of movement clauses) while also having a good idea of how they would pivot if that fell through is so difficult to believe?

 

[nightranger]

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 you would rather have Benning sign Marky to a ridicules contract that costs the team Demko who is 6 years younger and has a very good chance to be better as soon as this season? Benning presented Marky with a contract that was best for the team, Marky said no and has talked shit ever since. Even before he left I said the guy was a head case who doesn't have the mentality to win. The guy gets rattled just like another goalie we had who choked when it mattered.

 

[nightranger]

Didn’t see that one. I suspect he meant Marky’s contract won’t age well. And it won’t. But yes, the Loui contract is the worst contract in canuck history

Ummm Roberto says hello.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

What I want evidence for is your statement - Clearly, they (Ian Clark and management) chose Demko. the younger keeper..

If this was the case then why did Benning say he was trying to retain Markstrom. That it was a priority. If they had decided to go with youth (as you say) why go through the pretense of even negotiating with Markstrom. Basically you're saying that Benning was not negotiating in good faith with Markstrom since they had previously decided to go with youth.

And, as you say, they had decided to go with the younger Demko, long term, what has the NMC got to do with anything? Demko is an RFA next year and if he establishes himself as an starter then you are going have to pay him. If they had signed Markstrom then how could they pay Demko next year? Markstrom, NMC or not, could not be signed if they intended to keep Demko long term. Given the fact the cap is not going up, there is no way they could kept both. Do you understand this and can you see how it undermines your insistence that the NMC was only important consideration?

Thus money was a concern as well. They couldn't pay Markstrom this year if they intended to pay Demko next year.

I think it much more likely that Benning did want to keep Markstrom. But very typically he hadn't been proactive and now found himself boxed in. He couldn't pay both Demko and Markstrom long term, and he kept if Markstrom he would lose Demko either b/c there was no money to pay him (especially with the Hughes and Pettersson contracts coming up) or because of the ED. He then tried to move people like Eriksson to get some space (as though that was going to happen) but that led to nothing. So then he tried to low ball Markstrom and get him to drop the NMC hoping loyalty might get Markstrom to comply. Of course, it didn't and any planning by Benning went up in smoke. Benning was the victim of not thinking ahead and messing up his cap.

As things turned out, things might have luckily worked out the best for the team. I wanted them to keep Demko and did not want to overpay Markstrom. But I doubt this was result of careful planning by Benning but instead that he kind of stubbled into it. And, in the end he lost his MVP and best player for absolutely nothing. I don't see how you can praise him for that.

Note you think Calgary contract with Markstrom is akin to Canucks contract with Eriksson. Got that booked and we'll return to this to see how correct you are.

Clearly...you disregarded my opening statement (post #56)..".The Canucks chose to to go with Demko,'after' it was apparent that Marky wouldn't sign without an NMC"........You manufactured the whole' Canucks chose to go with Demko 'before' it was etc...

Benning wasn't boxed in..He could have simply given Marky the NMC, but given Demko's playoff performance..I don't believe they wanted to let him go....They could have afforded to run with both goalies this year, which would have given them more time to let things play out, and facilitate a trade for one of them.(before the ED?).

He didnt low ball Markstrom...$5.5M x 5 was perfectly in the ball park.....I dont think they were sold on giving a 31 year old goalie an ironclad no movement 5 year deal (especially given how they have to sign and re sign their younger core players).

"Knowing Markstrom was likely leaving for more term and a no-movement clause, Benning had to keep Demko."iMac......Why didnt iMac mention cash?

I haven't seen any media reports that claim Benning 'messed up'...or anything close to your hyperbolic 'black eye for the organization'...Last year, I recall you raking Benning over the coals for the Miller deal as well...??

Several parts of the media believe Benning made an intelligent and decisive move in not re signing Markstrom.

Listen at the .55 second mark..


Listen at the 2.35 mark..


Harman Dayal shares his thoughts on Jacob Markstrom remaining a Canuck - Sportsnet.ca

 

[rypper]

So you would rather have Benning sign Marky to a ridicules contract that costs the team Demko who is 6 years younger and has a very good chance to be better as soon as this season? Benning presented Marky with a contract that was best for the team, Marky said no and has talked shit ever since. Even before he left I said the guy was a head case who doesn't have the mentality to win. The guy gets rattled just like another goalie we had who choked when it mattered.

Ah yes, continuing the long standing tradition of trashing once beloved players when they leave the team.

 

[orcatown]

This a direct quote from your first post, exactly as you typed it in - "Clearly, they (Ian Clark and management) chose Demko. the younger keeper.."

Where is the word after???

You only brought that in later when actual events didn't support your time line and you invented, without a single fact or source, your little scenario - like first they negotiated with Markstrom , then he wouldn't sign right away so then they asked Clark who should we keep, he said Demko, so then then they moved on from Markstrom ....

Fact is they were negotiating with Markstrom right up to the time he signed with Calgary. Also where is you evidence that Clark told management to go long term with Demko at this precise moment in negotiations. And don't tell me we can presume that. That would be a huge decision on Clark's part and you provide nothing to prove he did that. This just seems like a way of passing the buck to Clark. And if Benning is such an astute judge of players and talent shouldn't he be making his own decisions

Fact is, as well, that negotiations had been going on with Markstrom for months - all the way back into last season. Surely they would have been in contact with Clark throughout this period and knew his thoughts on Demko and Markstrom. Saying that Clark made some 11th hour intervention that caused Benning to move on from Markstrom seems ludicrous. If so, then Benning deserves heavy criticism since he should have such information long before negotiations started.

Also you continue to contradict yourself . You say, (and I'm quoting you directly here):

Benning wasn't boxed in..He could have simply given Marky the NMC, but given Demko's playoff performance..I don't believe they wanted to let him go....They could have afforded to run with both goalies this year, which would have given them more time to let things play out, and facilitate a trade for one of them.(before the ED?).

Well if had given Marky a NMC how he could facilitate a trade for him? If he had the NMC, Markstrom could have shot down any trade. Also, it would have created an ugly situation.

More than that you undercut the whole argument you been repeating through out. You say Benning couldn't give a NMC, that this was the key hang in negotiations, then you say but he could have simply given Marky the MNC. Again the fact is he couldn't give Markstrom a MNC (something you been saying constantly) without losing Demko in the ED. He was boxed in.

Also, you say (and again I'm quoting you directly)

"Knowing Markstrom was likely leaving for more term and a no-movement clause, Benning had to keep Demko".

But before you stated

"Markstrom demanding an NTC made the decision for all parties involved."

if he didnt get his desired No Movement Clause, he was moving on..end of story.

First you say it was only about the NMC (like end of story) yet now you say but was also term. Again I'm not contradicting you, you are contradicting yourself. If it was only about the NMC why bring up term

Moreover, though you somehow don't recognize it was also about money. Having both Markstrom and Demko was going to be too expensive and any number of sources recognize that and the lack of wiggle room Benning had was because of his self-created cap problems (some I referred to in other sources)

Here Benning admits he has to move money out to keep players like Markstrom

Benning: Suppose there's a chance of re-signing Markstrom, Tanev & Toffoli but dependent on moving money out


Finally you say no one criticized Benning for losing his best player and MVP. There was plenty of criticism. There is some below. Criticism would have much heavier if Holtby hadn't been quickly signed which muted criticism and is, as I have said from the start, something for which Canuck management should be congratulated.

Former Canucks goaltender Eddie Lack calls out GM for handling of Markstrom negotiations | TradeRumours.com

Canucks: Why Jim Benning’s job is in jeopardy now

Canucks fans aren't pleased after Markstrom, Toffoli and Stecher all sign elsewhere - Article - BARDOWN

Not sure there is anything left to say. I can agree with you that I should have considered the NMC in the Markstrom negotiations more than I did in the initial post. But I really don't understand why you got so nasty and bent out of shape b/c I didn't.

 

[Fire Benning]

I think the Nate Schmidt trade was absolutely fantastic. That being said people forget how much Markstrom masked the team last year, the team despite improving the back end will be worse due to this.

Didn’t understand the Holtby signing and wish we allocated that money to Toffoli/Stetcher. Fine with not bringing back Tanev / Markstrom.

Would have traded Pearson for a pick and brought in Mikael Granlund who was very good after the coach was fired in Nashville.

Miller / Pettersson / Toffoli
Granlund / Horvat / Boeser
Roussel / Gaudette / Virtanen
Motte / Beagle / MacEwen

Hughes / Schmidt
Edler / Stetcher
Hamonic / Myers

 

[Hit the post]

I mean Loui Eriksson wasn't Loui Eriksson until he was Loui Eriksson.

Aka...the ink on his Canucks contract wasn’t even dry when he stunk up the joint. And he’s maintained that level of performance ever since.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Vezina caliber goalie.

Can't really say that about a goalie that hasn't been a finalist, let alone won a Vezina.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Schmidt was an absolute coup. I have no idea how in the world Benning pulled that off, but it single-handedly redeemed what had been a complete tire fire to that point.

 

[DFAC]

I think the Nate Schmidt trade was absolutely fantastic. That being said people forget how much Markstrom masked the team last year, the team despite improving the back end will be worse due to this.

Didn’t understand the Holtby signing and wish we allocated that money to Toffoli/Stetcher. Fine with not bringing back Tanev / Markstrom.

Would have traded Pearson for a pick and brought in Mikael Granlund who was very good after the coach was fired in Nashville.

Miller / Pettersson / Toffoli
Granlund / Horvat / Boeser
Roussel / Gaudette / Virtanen
Motte / Beagle / MacEwen

Hughes / Schmidt
Edler / Stetcher
Hamonic / Myers

I like this alot and would’ve signed a veteran backup goalie too for cheap

 

[Captain Bowie]

Didn’t understand the Holtby signing

It's pretty easy to understand.

1. We need 2 goalies.
2. Especially in what we knew was going to be a condensed schedule.
3. With a young goalie, a veteran back-up would be ideal
4. Holtby has a ton of experience, at a good price, and still a very capable NHL goalie.
5. He is the perfect kind of partner to bring along Demko into the full-time starter role. Whether that takes 1 period, 1 game, 1 week, 1 month, or 1 season.

I don't know what's hard to understand.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I like this alot and would’ve signed a veteran backup goalie too for cheap

And if Demko struggles out the gate, we have to rely on... Craig Anderson to get us back to the playoffs?