GDT: July 1st - Free Agent Frenzy | II

TheWolf*

Registered User
May 3, 2015
3,813
4
I'm sure there will be some dumb GM who would take him. Colorado maybe? Though Benning gave him a NTC so we may need to just waive him.

Which unfortunately he would never do. He just had a chance to dump him off on Vegas and chose not to let that be a possibility.

I think Sutter is here basically until Benning isn't.
 

Louis Cypher

Boys are back in town
Jun 11, 2007
3,717
2,983
Heard a rumor over on the oiler board that Canucks signed Yakapov. Any truth to it?
 

Louis Cypher

Boys are back in town
Jun 11, 2007
3,717
2,983
Said 2 year deal. Eakins and the Oilers ruined him. I'd be cheering for him except against the Oil. Some onus is on Yak obviously but they didn't help much.
 

AMostlyWildPerson

Registered User
Jul 2, 2017
20
2
West Coast
As long as all these signings leave spots for young guys who are good enough to play and grow in the NHL, I wouldn't be too worried about how much we pay these guys. Especially if they're all only for the next couple years, if we have young guys get better we can drop these guys and sign our young guys for more money.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,893
They felt that they needed to deal Hansen because of the Expansion Draft. Jim Benning has basically said this. It does not logically follow that after they put Hansen on the block, because the Sharks were able to give us something (a fringe prospect and a 4th with us retaining salary,) then therefore he was not "dumped" and therefore...what, even?
You are not being logical.

Suppose I have an item I do not value. Like ... this lamp. So I put this lamp on craigslist and see if anyone will buy it. Your argument is that if someone else buys my lamp then I must value it, but if they don't, and I simply discard it, then I must not value it.

You are not being logical.

Hansen is a player the Canucks value and knows has value around the league. (BTW Linden is on record that he pushed Benning to trade Hansen so don't pin this on Benning). Clearly, the Canucks didn't just "dump" Hansen. If you ask Sharks fans, it was about evenly split in terms of fans who liked the deal.

As for your example, if you put a lamp on craigslist, unless you are offering it for free, you obviously think you can sell it for value. It would be stupid of you to do so otherwise. And I think a better example is that you have multiple lamps (say 3) with great value to you. Your wife/husband/boss/whatever thinks that your more expensive lamp of the 3 won't fit the decor after the renovations are done and so you should sell it or else he/she will throw one of the other lamps out. He/She isn't going to let you keep all 3 lamps. You think that that expensive lamp simply won't be a long term fit in your house. Yet, you think the more expensive lamp is worth say $1M. If you sell it now, you can get about $800K for it. If you wait, you might be able to get $1M for it but there's a chance that it will depreciate and you might lose one of your other lamps for nothing if you don't sell the more expensive lamp in time. You choose to sell your lamp for $800K.

It was a lousy trade made because they feared losing Baertschi or Granlund to expansion.

In a vacuum, there are plenty of "lousy trades" that were made due to the expansion draft. I don't know why people don't get this. There's value in keeping Baertschi and Granlund while getting assets for Hansen. Let's put Baertschi's and Granlund's value as say a 2nd round pick. You don't think Hansen for Goldobin, a 2nd round pick, and a conditional 4th is a good trade? Obviously, it depends on your view of Goldobin. If you are high on him he's worth a late first in this past draft. If not, he's at least worth a 2nd unless you absolutely hold the opinion that Goldobin would amount to nothing.
 

xtr3m

Registered User
Jan 28, 2009
8,564
71
Vancouver

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
22,896
6,485
Canucks army shares a pretty good analysis of the moves that I share:

https://canucksarmy.com/2017/07/03/grading-the-canucks-free-agent-signings/

I do like the Gagner signing a bit better then they did though.

LOL, this is my favourite part:

Canucks Army said:
It's probably a little dramatic to call the signing of a depth-defender (Wiercioch) who may not even make an impact the best signing of Jim Benning's tenure in Vancouver, but I'm still tempted to do it.

The fact that's even debatable is depressing.
 

ziploc

Registered User
Aug 29, 2003
6,273
4,351
Vancouver
No news on Yakupov huh? I think it's just as well. Really don't see where he would fit at this point, except for Utica.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,044
14,075
Canucks army shares a pretty good analysis of the moves that I share:

https://canucksarmy.com/2017/07/03/grading-the-canucks-free-agent-signings/

I do like the Gagner signing a bit better then they did though.

The guys at the 'Army' are all-in on analytics and anyone like Jeff O'Neill that questions it is basically a troglodyte....and of course Wiercioch is their analytics darling....but there has to be a reason why he's been a 'healthy scratch' so many times during a season and has yet to crack the 60-games played mark in his career.....I mean his coaches must look at the same Corsi numbers don't they? ........maybe these fancy stats around 'shot suppression", "zone time" and "adjusted Corsi numbers" aren't what they're cracked up to be.

And I see Michail Grigorenko, another guy who's tires were pumped by the analytics crowd, couldn't find a single taker as a UFA and has signed with CKSA Moscow of the KHL.
 

WetcoastOrca

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
38,142
21,936
Vancouver, BC
I'd give Benning a B minus. No bad deals and no really good ones either. Pretty much what we should be doing but nothing to get too excited about. His trade deadline and draft were better, imo and move the whole period up to a B. Relative to other years he gets one of those report card comments that parents love to read: Little Jimmy showed strong improvement this year.
 

Rotting Corpse*

Registered User
Sep 20, 2003
60,153
3
Kelowna, BC
I find it amazing that people who supposedly understand analytics still think that Wiercoch is a good player based on his absurdly soft minutes like 4 years ago.

The other thing is like...

With Erik Karlsson: 200 minutes, 69.0 GF%, 59.7 CF%
Apart from EK: 1,446 minutes, 45.1 GF%, 48.7 CF%

Might have something to do with it...
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
They love Wiercioch and have been suggesting the Canucks sign him for years. I think it's a little silly to give that signing an A+ myself...it's a fairly irrelevant depth signing.

I know, there is no guarantee he even makes the NHL and he's still up there with his best UFA signings.
 

Cupless44

Registered User
Jun 25, 2014
7,154
3,298
Canucks army shares a pretty good analysis of the moves that I share:

https://canucksarmy.com/2017/07/03/grading-the-canucks-free-agent-signings/

I do like the Gagner signing a bit better then they did though.

I think they have a very fair, balanced, objective take on the signings which should be credible to most on here because they are analytics guys and are far from Benning fans.

The signings are nothing to celebrate but hardly anything to harshly criticize either. Canucks added depth, making sure prospects wont have to be rushed and will have to earn and force their way into the line-up. None of the contracts came with any form of no movement clauses and none have silly term, 3 years being the longest and that is only 1 out of 5 contracts, rest are 2 years or less.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->