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

[sting101]

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.

Fair and it was a tough call given how good Marky is. The irony is him being in Calgary during their best window opportunity as far as i can tell. I think Benning gets fired by the end of this season. The optics are unavoidably bad unless Schmidt and Holtby play above anything expected.

For me i'm sick of legacy deals and i don't want a broken down 34 35 yr old Markstrom eating up 6 million underachieving with the core in prime ages. Of course it's Van and he likely gets better with age and becomes the heir apparent to Lundqvist now that he's gone.

 

[MS]

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

I can't speak for everyone, but my take on Markstrom was :

1) Given the total mess our contract situation is and how much trouble we're in going forward, we probably couldn't justify another risky long-term deal to Markstrom.

2) However, if the team had been managed correctly and had an appropriate cap situation for where the team was at in our cycle and an ability to take a risk on a long-term contract, Markstrom was the player to do that with and I absolutely would have been willing to take that risk with him.

Also I suspect that we could have negotiated a better deal with him than Calgary got had we been more proactive.

It's not a simple as 'Would you or wouldn't you have given him the Calgary deal?' - it's looking at the pattern of mismanagement that led us to be in the situation we were in and forced the choices we were forced to make.

 

[Fatass]

I can't speak for everyone, but my take on Markstrom was :

1) Given the total mess our contract situation is and how much trouble we're in going forward, we probably couldn't justify another risky long-term deal to Markstrom.

2) However, if the team had been managed correctly and had an appropriate cap situation for where the team was at in our cycle and an ability to take a risk on a long-term contract, Markstrom was the player to do that with and I absolutely would have been willing to take that risk with him.

Also I suspect that we could have negotiated a better deal with him than Calgary got had we been more proactive.

It's not a simple as 'Would you or wouldn't you have given him the Calgary deal?' - it's looking at the pattern of mismanagement that led us to be in the situation we were in and forced the choices we were forced to make.

Does Benning even plan ahead? Didn’t he now that as soon as he signed Myers that meant Tanev was gone? Did he not know when Marky and Tanev were becoming UFAs? Either Benning is a complete moron (at planning ahead) or he fully expected to let both Marky and Tanev walk as UFAs.

 

[MS]

Does Benning even plan ahead? Didn’t he now that as soon as he signed Myers that meant Tanev was gone? Did he not know when Marky and Tanev were becoming UFAs? Either Benning is a complete moron (at planning ahead) or he fully expected to let both Marky and Tanev walk as UFAs.

Benning knew they had to make the playoffs in 19-20 or they'd be fired.

Benning made a series of extremely short-term, short-sighted moves in 2019 to try and get to the playoffs to save his job, at the expense of the health of the team post-2020. If they miss the playoffs, they're fired anyway. If the make the playoffs, they've managed to save their jobs and then they'll deal with the fallout afterward. Having a job fixing a mess is better than not having a job at all.

So the short answer is no, they didn't plan ahead. They actively sabotaged the longer-term future for short-term selfish personal gains.

 

[rypper]

It's been a complaint of mine throughout his time running the team, is the lack of ability to multitask.

Maybe it's Jim, maybe it's the size of management team. I recall one off season where he was asked about upcoming free agents and he said something to the effect of, woah let's get through the draft first before we think about rfa/ufas.

He was far too busy chasing OEL to focus on his departing free agents more then a phone call, if that.

Was he on the phone with Arizona and Weisbrod just beside him cheering him on, writing things on paper to say etc? Why isn't he out phoning free agents at the same time? Because they have no cap space to do both things at once.

 

[4Twenty]

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

What do you mean by sliding scale of judgement.

Keeping Markstrom through his 35 year old season would make perfect sense if this team was building towards contending not experiencing an immediate reboot after seemingly pushing in their chips just to get in.

Should people remind you of all the times you’ve supported and excused the moves that got us to this point?

Demko clearing out a salary or two via trade and returning Markstrom and Toffoli and Tanev are the moves a team trying to win makes. Rebooting after trading a 1st and 2nd just to get in ridiculous imo.

If a lot of the shitty contracts expired this offseason not next and beyond keeping Markstrom would’ve been the consensus move.

Essentially it’s trading Schneider the tyear before 2011 to get us what we need to contend.

 

[MS]

It's been a complaint of mine throughout his time running the team, is the lack of ability to multitask.

Maybe it's Jim, maybe it's the size of management team. I recall one off season where he was asked about upcoming free agents and he said something to the effect of, woah let's get through the draft first before we think about rfa/ufas.

He was far too busy chasing OEL to focus on his departing free agents more then a phone call, if that.

Was he on the phone with Arizona and Weisbrod just beside him cheering him on, writing things on paper to say etc? Why isn't he out phoning free agents at the same time? Because they have no cap space to do both things at once.

There was also the point mid-way through the 16-17 season where he admitted they hadn't even looked at expansion draft ramifications yet, at a point where other teams had already been planning for a year.

It's a mix of laziness and incompetence. The guy isn't smart enough or qualified enough to keep multiple balls in the air at once or to be proactive and decisive ... but also has always seemed like a guy who'd rather be scouting junior games than be doing all this planning and negotiation stuff.

 

[MS]

What do you mean by sliding scale of judgement.

Keeping Markstrom through his 35 year old season would make perfect sense if this team was building towards contending not experiencing an immediate reboot after seemingly pushing in their chips just to get in.

Should people remind you of all the times you’ve supported and excused the moves that got us to this point?

Demko clearing out a salary or two via trade and returning Markstrom and Toffoli and Tanev are the moves a team trying to win makes. Rebooting after trading a 1st and 2nd just to get in ridiculous imo.

If a lot of the shitty contracts expired this offseason not next and beyond keeping Markstrom would’ve been the consensus move.

Essentially it’s trading Schneider the tyear before 2011 to get us what we need to contend.

It's absolutely mindblowing to see all these people who have defended long-term, horrible deals to Eriksson/Sutter/Myers/Roussel/Beagle/whoever now choosing to draw a line in the sand and say well, we can't possibly have ever given a long-term contract to our MVP! He might decline before he's 35!

Where the hell was this logic for the past 6 years?

And, like, would people rather be spending $6 million on Tyler Myers or Jakob Markstrom?

By continuing to make Myers and Beagle signings, they painted themselves into a corner where they couldn't sign Markstrom and Tanev - the veteran guys who were absolute key cogs in our continued success as well as long-term dedicated Canucks.

 

[Pavel96]

It's absolutely mindblowing to see all these people who have defended long-term, horrible deals to Eriksson/Sutter/Myers/Roussel/Beagle/whoever now choosing to draw a line in the sand and say well, we can't possibly have ever given a long-term contract to our MVP! He might decline before he's 35!

Where the hell was this logic for the past 6 years?

And, like, would people rather be spending $6 million on Tyler Myers or Jakob Markstrom?

By continuing to make Myers and Beagle signings, they painted themselves into a corner where they couldn't sign Markstrom and Tanev - the veteran guys who were absolute key cogs in our continued success as well as long-term dedicated Canucks.

But isn't it completely expected? Of course whatever move Jim made was the right one to make. And of course defending those moves will defy logic and consistent reasoning. That's what actually is consistent.

That's how it works and it's been operating like this for years.

Just put your Canucks jersey on and bury your head in the sand, oh and make sure to put both of your thumbs up!

 

[sting101]

I can't speak for everyone, but my take on Markstrom was :

1) Given the total mess our contract situation is and how much trouble we're in going forward, we probably couldn't justify another risky long-term deal to Markstrom.

2) However, if the team had been managed correctly and had an appropriate cap situation for where the team was at in our cycle and an ability to take a risk on a long-term contract, Markstrom was the player to do that with and I absolutely would have been willing to take that risk with him.

Also I suspect that we could have negotiated a better deal with him than Calgary got had we been more proactive.

It's not a simple as 'Would you or wouldn't you have given him the Calgary deal?' - it's looking at the pattern of mismanagement that led us to be in the situation we were in and forced the choices we were forced to make.

Fair enough but then every opinion of contracts comes with the caveat of hypothetically speaking without Eriksson etc i would have probably done differently. That's a nice safeguard to have when having opinions.

I appreciate that you outlined it the way you have. Not everyone is as explicit

It's absolutely mindblowing to see all these people who have defended long-term, horrible deals to Eriksson/Sutter/Myers/Roussel/Beagle/whoever now choosing to draw a line in the sand and say well, we can't possibly have ever given a long-term contract to our MVP! He might decline before he's 35!

Where the hell was this logic for the past 6 years?

And, like, would people rather be spending $6 million on Tyler Myers or Jakob Markstrom?

By continuing to make Myers and Beagle signings, they painted themselves into a corner where they couldn't sign Markstrom and Tanev - the veteran guys who were absolute key cogs in our continued success as well as long-term dedicated Canucks.

Holtby and Schmidt make the same money so that's not completely true

 

[sting101]

What do you mean by sliding scale of judgement.

Keeping Markstrom through his 35 year old season would make perfect sense if this team was building towards contending not experiencing an immediate reboot after seemingly pushing in their chips just to get in.

Should people remind you of all the times you’ve supported and excused the moves that got us to this point?

Demko clearing out a salary or two via trade and returning Markstrom and Toffoli and Tanev are the moves a team trying to win makes. Rebooting after trading a 1st and 2nd just to get in ridiculous imo.

If a lot of the shitty contracts expired this offseason not next and beyond keeping Markstrom would’ve been the consensus move.

Essentially it’s trading Schneider the tyear before 2011 to get us what we need to contend.

There is a lot to like off this roster. I can have varying opinions without having to like or hate everything or picking sides.

Remind me all you want.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

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.

Jim Benning doesn't even know the difference between the buyer's and seller's market; a sunk cost is intellectually beyond him.

 

[mathonwy]

 

[MS]

Jim Benning doesn't even know the difference between the buyer's and seller's market; a sunk cost is intellectually beyond him.

I’d forgotten about that quote.

 

[y2kcanucks]

It's absolutely mindblowing to see all these people who have defended long-term, horrible deals to Eriksson/Sutter/Myers/Roussel/Beagle/whoever now choosing to draw a line in the sand and say well, we can't possibly have ever given a long-term contract to our MVP! He might decline before he's 35!

Where the hell was this logic for the past 6 years?

And, like, would people rather be spending $6 million on Tyler Myers or Jakob Markstrom?

By continuing to make Myers and Beagle signings, they painted themselves into a corner where they couldn't sign Markstrom and Tanev - the veteran guys who were absolute key cogs in our continued success as well as long-term dedicated Canucks.

For me the issue was likely losing Demko in the expansion draft. But you’re absolutely right.

My take on it is this: if you let Markstrom go and go with Demko that’s fine. That should give you and advantage elsewhere because of that cap savings. But because we have $30M of wasted cap space there was no advantage.

The other side is if the Canucks did a proper rebuild and didn’t waste so much on bad contracts they would likely be a legitimate playoff team right now. And in that case it would make sense to bring back Markstrom to help with a Cup push. But because the team has been horribly mismanaged it didn’t make sense to bring him back just to keep the lipstick on this pig.

 

[Didalee Hed]

“, if at all?”

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

“, if at all?”

Just came here to post something similar.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

I’d forgotten about that quote.

Many have but it will forever be my "Jimbo is a special type of moron" talisman

 

[Didalee Hed]

Just came here to post something similar.

Like.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I can't speak for everyone, but my take on Markstrom was :

1) Given the total mess our contract situation is and how much trouble we're in going forward, we probably couldn't justify another risky long-term deal to Markstrom.

2) However, if the team had been managed correctly and had an appropriate cap situation for where the team was at in our cycle and an ability to take a risk on a long-term contract, Markstrom was the player to do that with and I absolutely would have been willing to take that risk with him.

Also I suspect that we could have negotiated a better deal with him than Calgary got had we been more proactive.

It's not a simple as 'Would you or wouldn't you have given him the Calgary deal?' - it's looking at the pattern of mismanagement that led us to be in the situation we were in and forced the choices we were forced to make.

This sums up my position perfectly.

 

[4Twenty]

There is a lot to like off this roster. I can have varying opinions without having to like or hate everything or picking sides.

Remind me all you want.

You already picked sides a long time ago.

 

[iFan]

If the season continues to go as it is, I don’t see how Benning and Green survive this.

 

[MS]

Many have but it will forever be my "Jimbo is a special type of moron" talisman

Yeah, we were talking about this the other day and mine were the comments about using the draft simulator and his not understanding the super-simple NHL tampering rules.

There's so many examples of his stupidity that I actually forgot that the GM of an $800 million company on a 7-figure salary didn't know what a buyer's market and seller's market were. It's just ... unbelievable that we've been living in this reality for 7 years as Canuck fans.

 

[Fatass]

If the season continues to go as it is, I don’t see how Benning and Green survive this.

When I started this thread I had serious concerns the losses of our all star and team MVP goalie - Marky, our top right shot D - Tanev, and our top line right wing - Tofu would take a lot out of us. Clearly it has, and this regression is all on Benning, and he should absolutely be replaced. I’ve not been a fan of Green’s systems from day one, but he has been restricted in what he can do by his GM. Green will (likely) be sent packing too.

 

[Fatass]

Yeah, we were talking about this the other day and mine were the comments about using the draft simulator and his not understanding the super-simple NHL tampering rules.

There's so many examples of his stupidity that I actually forgot that the GM of an $800 million company on a 7-figure salary didn't know what a buyer's market and seller's market were. It's just ... unbelievable that we've been living in this reality for 7 years as Canuck fans.

100% agree. And knowing this about Benning (which is blatantly obvious) tells us what about our ownership? Either he’s part of the “Jethro intellectual club”, or no one better than Benning/Brod will work for him. My God! Our owner allowed Benning to force out Gilman and Bracket, who were two (actually) competent people. What was he thinking?