Speculation: How much do we regress, if at all?

[MS]

This is a good point, but there was a version of the Canucks where they could have have kept these guys even with Myers and whoever on the roster.

Buy out Sutter, don't qualify Jake, package Eriksson with a 1st + B prospect (Juolevi/Lind/etc) to lose that contract, don't sign Braden Holtby. That clears up about $15M in cap space with which you can easily retain Tanev, Markstrom, Stecher, Leivo and still have ~$2M for one of the cheap, effective 3Cs that were available this offseason (Eakin/Wennberg/Turris/Haula types), which was actually Vancouver's biggest need: a 3C Travis could trust. That would give you 3 big-minute lines, 3 balanced D pairings (we are still adding Schmidt here) superstar goaltending. This positions the Canucks well to contend over the next 3 seasons where Miller, Horvat, and Boeser are cost-controlled.

The Canucks should be able to do something similar this off-season (particularly on D, where the Canucks only have Schmidt worth protecting in the expansion draft) but it would need a real GM, not Jim "oh god oh god how can I phone Barrie AND Stecher oh god oh god" Benning at the wheel.

No argument there whatsoever.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Absolutely! And traded Demko as sweetener to dump toxic contracts. What’s the cap difference between Marky and Holtby? Terrible asset management.

Holtby is signed for 2 years , Markstrom is signed for 6 years, with a NMC...

How is Markys deal going to look in 2-3 years..?..He broke down twice in 2020..Doubt it gets any easier when you're 33.

Good signing for the Flames..they have an older core than the Canucks..In my mind, the Flames are currently winning the battle, but I think the Canucks will ultimately win the war.

Quick question,..If you could trade the current Canucks squad (and their assets), for the current Flames (and their assets)...Would you..?...Simple answer..yes or no..?

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Fair enough..I think the Canucks did the right thing by not re-signing a 31 year old Marky to 6 years (with a NMC)..He took the overpayment and walked..The Canucks put an internal value on the player, and didn't go beyond that.

What's s the point on holding the line on actual good players when you don't do it for filler like Myers/Eriksson/Beagle/Roussel/etc.

 

[mriswith]

This is a good point, but there was a version of the Canucks where they could have have kept these guys even with Myers and whoever on the roster.

Buy out Sutter, don't qualify Jake, package Eriksson with a 1st + B prospect (Juolevi/Lind/etc) to lose that contract, don't sign Braden Holtby. That clears up about $15M in cap space with which you can easily retain Tanev, Markstrom, Stecher, Leivo and still have ~$2M for one of the cheap, effective 3Cs that were available this offseason (Eakin/Wennberg/Turris/Haula types), which was actually Vancouver's biggest need: a 3C Travis could trust. That would give you 3 big-minute lines, 3 balanced D pairings (we are still adding Schmidt here) superstar goaltending. This positions the Canucks well to contend over the next 3 seasons where Miller, Horvat, and Boeser are cost-controlled.

The Canucks should be able to do something similar this off-season (particularly on D, where the Canucks only have Schmidt worth protecting in the expansion draft) but it would need a real GM, not Jim "oh god oh god how can I phone Barrie AND Stecher oh god oh god" Benning at the wheel.

Contenders is a stretch. That's still a bubble team at best.

Still have Beagle, Roussel, Benn, Myers, and Baertschi eating 17 million cap while providing barely any value, essentially cancelling out Petey and Hughes ELC's. The farm is average to slightly above average so not much pushing up from there to provide a competitive advantage.

Reality is that just as much as the horrible UFA contracts killed the team, the asset bleed did at least as much damage. If Benning had made only value-neutral transactions his entire tenure, never winning a single trade but not losing them either, and selling the vets that made sense to sell like LA did, we'd have LA's farm.

I would have let all of the guys walk that did walk, except Stecher and Leivo because they were so cheap it was pointless not to.

But I also saw absolutely no path to contending in the next 3 years which is Markstrom's window. We need a new GM who is at least average, and the new GM needs a 2-3 year runway to clear out Benning's garbage, so by default that kills Markstroms window off for our team. No point in signing him when we already need a rebuild, we can't contend for the first half of his and Tanev's contracts, and the latter half is likely to be ugly, which is the time frame we might actually be able to be contenders.

It would be hilarious to me if Benning got fired for what was actually his first time thinking long term and sacrificing the present for the future. Just like the Gillis firing it would reek of bad process/thinking behind the firing.

 

[4Twenty]

Holtby is signed for 2 years , Markstrom is signed for 6 years, with a NMC...

How is Markys deal going to look in 2-3 years..?..He broke down twice in 2020..Doubt it gets any easier when you're 33.

Good signing for the Flames..they have an older core than the Canucks..In my mind, the Flames are currently winning the battle, but I think the Canucks will ultimately win the war.

Quick question,..If you could trade the current Canucks squad (and their assets), for the current Flames (and their assets)...Would you..?...Simple answer..yes or no..?

What’s with all these hypothetical’s. I thought you didn’t deal in those.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

What’s with all these hypothetical’s. I thought you didn’t deal in those.

nar·ra·tive
/ˈnerədiv/

noun

1. a spoken or written account of connected events; a story.

 

[Windy River]

Schmidt’s addition will more than offset the loss of Tanev because the later likely would’ve missed a good chunk of games (last season probably was an aberration).

Big question will be if Demko can play well over a prolonged length of time.

It’s a small-ish sample size, but I felt the Demko question had already been sufficiently answered from past play: No, he can not play well over long period of time.. in fact beyond those 3 ‘really good but not good enough to win’ playoff games from Demko, I can’t recall him playing well over a short period of time.

So to think going from a team with goalie that was near-consensus the primary reason for the ‘success’ that was achieved-to a sub .900 major downgrade goalie, besides otherwise losing a handful of supporting pieces with little to make it up, it’s a foregone conclusion...

 

[Jyrki21]

I´m a Norwegian who started following the Canucks some 10 years ago because I used to travel there for work.

Unrelated to the thread, but this is cool – I didn't realize we had a Norwegian fan here... I visited your country in 2010, and even got to experience 24-hour sunlight in Tromsø.

 

[VanJack]

Holtby is signed for 2 years , Markstrom is signed for 6 years, with a NMC...

How is Markys deal going to look in 2-3 years..?..He broke down twice in 2020..Doubt it gets any easier when you're 33.

Good signing for the Flames..they have an older core than the Canucks..In my mind, the Flames are currently winning the battle, but I think the Canucks will ultimately win the war.

Quick question,..If you could trade the current Canucks squad (and their assets), for the current Flames (and their assets)...Would you..?...Simple answer..yes or no..?

Hard to disagree with this.....unfortunately a lot of fans only look at these deals over a very short term. Six years on a contract is a long time.

Sadly, there's a lot of NHL GM's (Canucks included) who hand out long term contracts without much thought either about how the last years are going to look. It's the reason why we've ended up with albatross contracts for the likes of Sutter, Eriksson, Myers and Beagle. GM's desperate to secure their jobs, offer up these contracts because it's likely they won't be around when the $&#^% hits the fan in the last three years.

The Canucks simply couldn't afford to offer Markstrom a six year deal; and Tanev a four-year deal. But I think it was probably the owner rather than Benning who laid the law down. I think the Canucks eventually land in the middle of the pack in terms of their salary cap numbers. So the turnover at the end of the season will be even greater than it was this past off-season.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Hard to disagree with this.....unfortunately a lot of fans only look at these deals over a very short term. Six years on a contract is a long time.

Sadly, there's a lot of NHL GM's (Canucks included) who hand out long term contracts without much thought either about how the last years are going to look. It's the reason why we've ended up with albatross contracts for the likes of Sutter, Eriksson, Myers and Beagle. GM's desperate to secure their jobs, offer up these contracts because it's likely they won't be around when the $&#^% hits the fan in the last three years.

The Canucks simply couldn't afford to offer Markstrom a six year deal; and Tanev a four-year deal. But I think it was probably the owner rather than Benning who laid the law down. I think the Canucks eventually land in the middle of the pack in terms of their salary cap numbers. So the turnover at the end of the season will be even greater than it was this past off-season.

I don't think it was the owner..I think it was AGM Chris Gear, he's the numbers guy..He most likely presented Benning with cold hard numbers that could not be exceeded.

I also believe that given the fact that they still have to sign, and retain, the young core players in the next few years..From this point forward, giving out long term, no movement contracts to players over 30 was a non starter.

The Markstrom signing is a 'damned if you do , damned if you don't' scenario. (we were going to lose an asset either way)..Fans here are ragging on Benning for not signing Marky, and others think it was prudent to go with the younger option.

 

[4Twenty]

Letting Markstrom, Tanev, Stecher, and Toffoli go was just the big noticeable moves required to show the general masses how poor the spending had been. Players were shocked over it. Any time you’re pulling quality players off the roster you’re worsening the team and I could definitely understand if players were shocked and didn’t expect a reboot instead of being able to build on last years team.

In a vacuum letting them go was fine. When looking at what forced the decisions it’s hard not to be critical.

If he misses this year and still gets support I will never understand it. But I fully expect it.

 

[StreetHawk]

I don't think it was the owner..I think it was AGM Chris Gear, he's the numbers guy..He most likely presented Benning with cold hard numbers that could not be exceeded.

I also believe that given the fact that they still have to sign, and retain, the young core players in the next few years..From this point forward, giving out long term, no movement contracts to players over 30 was a non starter.

The Markstrom signing is a 'damned if you do , damned if you don't' scenario. (we were going to lose an asset either way)..Fans here are ragging on Benning for not signing Marky, and others think it was prudent to go with the younger option.

Leave it to the Canucks fans to want the veteran over the younger goalie. Cause clearly other teams who opted for the young goalie made mistakes in the past decade:
Ana - Gibson over Andersen
TB - Vasilevsky over Bishop
Pit - Murray over MAF
Bos - Rask over Thomas
Cbs - Korpisalo over Bobrovsky

 

[y2kcanucks]

The Canucks were always going to regress this season. They were a bad team last year, buoyed by elite goaltending from Markstrom. Markstrom is no longer here to mask their defensive problems so this is the result.

The bar should still be set high. We shouldn't be lowering the bar just because the GM capped them out and wasn't able to build on what we had. But I fully expected this regression.

 

[VanJack]

The Canucks were always going to regress this season. They were a bad team last year, buoyed by elite goaltending from Markstrom. Markstrom is no longer here to mask their defensive problems so this is the result.

The bar should still be set high. We shouldn't be lowering the bar just because the GM capped them out and wasn't able to build on what we had. But I fully expected this regression.

I expected this as well, and I don't think you're alone. I still feel that up in the executive booth, the owner and the hockey ops people expected this as well. And frankly, if you're going to 'tank', this is definitely the year to do it.

Owners around the league are bleeding red ink.....and there's absolutely 'zero' incentive for making the playoffs. It just means you end up having more expenses for a month or so of playoff hockey.

I think Benning got his marching orders before the season even started.....get through the year....pare down the payroll dramatically in the off-season, and gear up for 2021-22. A high draft pick is just a bonus.

Sorry Canuck fans....but seems to me Ottawa and Vancouver will be in a turtle derby for 5th-6th in the North Division all season long, and the owner could care less.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I expected this as well, and I don't think you're alone. I still feel that up in the executive booth, the owner and the hockey ops people expected this as well. And frankly, if you're going to 'tank', this is definitely the year to do it.

Owners around the league are bleeding red ink.....and there's absolutely 'zero' incentive for making the playoffs. It just means you end up having more expenses for a month or so of playoff hockey.

I think Benning got his marching orders before the season even started.....get through the year....pare down the payroll dramatically in the off-season, and gear up for 2021-22. A high draft pick is just a bonus.

Sorry Canuck fans....but seems to me Ottawa and Vancouver will be in a turtle derby for 5th-6th in the North Division all season long, and the owner could care less.

LOL dude, no. You literally just made all of that up. Especially with Aquilini sending a message out to all season ticketholders that they expect to take a step forward this season, there is zero indication that ownership has given the okay to take a step back.

 

[StreetHawk]

LOL dude, no. You literally just made all of that up. Especially with Aquilini sending a message out to all season ticketholders that they expect to take a step forward this season, there is zero indication that ownership has given the okay to take a step back.

While Aquaman didn’t give the ok to spend more money or give up assets to get out of Israel’s his expectations for the club remain high not any different than when Benning arrived which was a flawed vision of the club.

Markstrom was never going to sign unless he was assured with a nmc that he was the Canucks goalie for the foreseeable future. No one in Calgary is close to competing with him for the top spot.

Tanev has 3 seasons before the last one where he missed 1/3 of the games. I don’t think anyone here would have sought to extend him for the going rates of 2019 when he was eligible for an extension.

as for TT to keep him they needed to buy out someone. Sven had $2.4 in salary this season so that means an $800k cap hit plus another $800k for his front loaded contract since his annual cap hit was $3.3 mill. That’s $1.6 mill in dead space. So half his cap hit but since he would have been buried that would mean around $700k of actual free cap space. Take Virtanen $2.55 that is $3.3 for TT. So needed to find a bit more cap space. That’s the major disappointment from the TT deal in that Sven was not included rather than Schaller who had an expiring contract. It would have been worth retaining $1 mill on Sven to move him cause that would still mean a $1.2 mill cap savings

 

[LaVal]

Before the season started I was making a long post in this thread explaining why I didn't think we'd regress. I made points about how I thought Pettersson was going break out into an elite player, that Hughes wouldn't get hit with the sophomore slump, the defense would actually be an improvement this season, and although Holtby/Demko wouldn't steal as many games as Markstrom, they'd provide reliable goaltending.

So I'm glad I decided not to post it.

 

[DS7]

Holtby is signed for 2 years , Markstrom is signed for 6 years, with a NMC...

How is Markys deal going to look in 2-3 years..?..He broke down twice in 2020..Doubt it gets any easier when you're 33.

Good signing for the Flames..they have an older core than the Canucks..In my mind, the Flames are currently winning the battle, but I think the Canucks will ultimately win the war.

Quick question,..If you could trade the current Canucks squad (and their assets), for the current Flames (and their assets)...Would you..?...Simple answer..yes or no..?

I'd be tempted to. Mainly because I like their defensive core better and Tkachuk/Gaudreau/Monahan/Lindholm is a solid foundation. But ultimately ill go with our core.

We can take a look at another aged #1 goalie in Pekka Rinne. He was pretty effective up until his mid 3s. 35-36 yrs. If Markstrom maintains his level of play for even half that contract without Demko going back to playoff form. Canucks have effectively thrown their window away.

Its frustrating. That expansion and pandemic had to have happened just as Marky became elite.

 

[sting101]

Fair enough..I think the Canucks did the right thing by not re-signing a 31 year old Marky to 6 years (with a NMC)..He took the overpayment and walked..The Canucks put an internal value on the player, and didn't go beyond that.

it's interesting that so many were in complete agreement with Melvin as was i that goalies were neither worth allocating a massive amount of cap space to and certainly not at term at 31 with movement protection that forced out assets.

Now because it's Benning and Recency bias it's a different story.???

Hopefully we can get the next Bobrovsky to make these guys happy in a few yrs

 

[Jack Burton]

While Aquaman didn’t give the ok to spend more money or give up assets to get out of Israel’s his expectations for the club remain high not any different than when Benning arrived which was a flawed vision of the club.

What makes you think frank put his foot down to not spend money or give up assets????

Jim Benning was f*cking chasing OEL when UFA started!!! Just a few months ago!!!! Have you seen that contract? It's brutal for not only the cap hit on a declining player but the signing bonuses owed and total salarie for the next 4 years! No wonder Arizona was trying to get out from under that contract.

There's a flawed, very flawed vision for this club and its alive and well.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

it's interesting that so many were in complete agreement with Melvin as was i that goalies were neither worth allocating a massive amount of cap space to and certainly not at term at 31 with movement protection that forced out assets.

Now because it's Benning and Recency bias it's a different story.???

Hopefully we can get the next Bobrovsky to make these guys happy in a few yrs

I have no problem with going with Demko, but all Benning's move for the previous year or two were win now moves to make our window in the next few years. Now we have to take a step back for the next year or two because of losing players because of Benning's mistake afters we gave up a bunch of futures.

For the record, I am most upset about losing Toffoli because of how good of a contract it was. If we didn't waste so much money on bad contracts I would of brought back Tanev too.

 

[sting101]

I have no problem with going with Demko, but all Benning's move for the previous year or two were win now moves to make our window in the next few years. Now we have to take a step back for the next year or two because of losing players because of Benning's mistake afters we gave up a bunch of futures.

For the record, I am most upset about losing Toffoli because of how good of a contract it was. If we didn't waste so much money on bad contracts I would of brought back Tanev too.

i have all the time in the world for this.

But the sliding scale of judgement on Markstrom is another story. And sure people can be choked about Marky too but the first time someone who advocates for Marky goes out and blasts another GM or ours for signing those almost always ill advised deals i will be here to remind them they are full of s--t

 

[DS7]

This is a good point, but there was a version of the Canucks where they could have have kept these guys even with Myers and whoever on the roster.

Buy out Sutter, don't qualify Jake, package Eriksson with a 1st + B prospect (Juolevi/Lind/etc) to lose that contract, don't sign Braden Holtby. That clears up about $15M in cap space with which you can easily retain Tanev, Markstrom, Stecher, Leivo and still have ~$2M for one of the cheap, effective 3Cs that were available this offseason (Eakin/Wennberg/Turris/Haula types), which was actually Vancouver's biggest need: a 3C Travis could trust. That would give you 3 big-minute lines, 3 balanced D pairings (we are still adding Schmidt here) superstar goaltending. This positions the Canucks well to contend over the next 3 seasons where Miller, Horvat, and Boeser are cost-controlled.

The Canucks should be able to do something similar this off-season (particularly on D, where the Canucks only have Schmidt worth protecting in the expansion draft) but it would need a real GM, not Jim "oh god oh god how can I phone Barrie AND Stecher oh god oh god" Benning at the wheel.

Agreed, the only thing I'm having trouble believing is that someone would take Loui for even a 1st + B prospect. Considering the market was such that the Knights couldn't even find takers for Fleury + second round pick as a sweetener. And unlike Loui, Fleury offers value to a team.

Even to the end, Benning can't let go of the notion that Sutter and Jake actually brings something to this team. And that cost us any combination of Tanev/Stecher/Markstrom...

Here's another thing Benning should learn while he's on year 7 of his job. The concept of Sunk Cost.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

i have all the time in the world for this.

But the sliding scale of judgement on Markstrom is another story. And sure people can be choked about Marky too but the first time someone who advocates for Marky goes out and blasts another GM or ours for signing those almost always ill advised deals i will be here to remind them they are full of s--t

Fair enough. There were also people like @Luckylarry that were saying we should of kept Marky and trade Demko in the offseason, and haven't changed their position. Everyone else hating on Benning here. There are a lot of reasons to criticize Benning, but not signing Markstrom until he is the right call. The only way I would of been okay with signing Markstom would of been if we traded Demko, and tried to unload some salary to go all in for a cup in the next 2-3 years.

 

[4Twenty]

it's interesting that so many were in complete agreement with Melvin as was i that goalies were neither worth allocating a massive amount of cap space to and certainly not at term at 31 with movement protection that forced out assets.

Now because it's Benning and Recency bias it's a different story.???

Hopefully we can get the next Bobrovsky to make these guys happy in a few yrs

$6m for a goalie, Especially one you know can deliver at your club is nothing like $10m.

You realize Bobrovsky’s contract is nearly double the cash right?