Management Thread III (MOD Warning Post # 67)

[clunk]

Which alt # is this? Gotta be over 100 now.

 

[4Twenty]

What do you mean by “I don’t think GM draft anyway.” Of course the GM does not drive to all the rinks and spend countless hours watching video and talking to coaches, family, teammates etc. Is there ever an argument that they do?

Anyways, there are plenty of 2nd and 3rd round picks that are considered solid prospects in our system, with Gaudette and some others with potential in there. It’s not all 1st rounders.

The “narrative” is that even a junky from the DTES could draft this well given how poorly the team has been in every single other facet possible known to humanity. You have simply wrapped it up with a different bow. Same line though.

We can’t talk because I’m not speaking to just you. There is this whole sub-culture of Benning haters on this forum that cry foul any time someone tries attribute any credit towards him. That is where this whole drafting line came from - because of one poster claiming everything Benning does turns to stone. Edit: see the response below as proof.

I've posted about GM/drafting quite a bit....search my post history. You brought up Gaudette - example....people give Benning credit for drafting Gaudette when it's much more likely he never saw the player play at all - see Gadjovich, Jonah - Benning/Weisbrod convo at draft table....the GM didn't know who a player the team was willing to take in the top 2 rounds. The general sentiment is that GM's draft...they get credit/blame for everything, I understand that....but a lot of it has to do with the work of a staff of scouts, not the GM. I've posted about this at length IIRC.

Why don't you just talk to the people who are posting to you, instead of building your posts around martyring against a narrative? I didn't mention being a junkie....probably best to just reply to posts from individuals....instead of a narrative.

Again, this is why I don't think GM's draft and don't think "drafting" should carry much weight when analyzing a General Manager. I know where the whole drafting conversation comes from....it is literally the main/only thing that props up the job he's done here. It's been happening since he got here.

So to summarize: Benning gets a ton of credit for drafting...I personally question how much GM's have to do with the draft....and the majority of the credit at the draft is 1st round picks, and the guy's made 5 top 10 picks, ie. the reward for having built terrible rosters.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

If anyone is capable of framing an argument that Jim Benning is a good GM without resorting to either of these worn-out, completely illogical tropes, I'd absolutely love to hear it.

I doubt that since I already demonstrated that Benning is spending much more efficiently than Dubas on young stars to the tune of 30-60%, just a few posts above yours, and it went unnoticed. Seems like you just want to keep attacking the same strawmen that you created for Benning years ago.

 

[krutovsdonut]

sorry to intrude, but shouldn't you guys be discussing whether the boeser signing is good management? i mean i know jumping the gun on dismissing all the prospects after the first game of the preseason is tempting and all, but the boeser signing is a key move for this franchise's management group so i am surprised that not a single person has mentioned it in this thread other than rmb (who has been ignored).

please fill me in on why it's a terrible signing that demonstrates that benning is an idiot who can't do anything except get lucky on lottery picks. i need to know how it fits the narrative.

i'll hang up and listen.

 

[MS]

sorry to intrude, but shouldn't you guys be discussing whether the boeser signing is good management? i mean i know jumping the gun on dismissing all the prospects after the first game of the preseason is tempting and all, but the boeser signing is a key move for this franchise's management group so i am surprised that not a single person has mentioned it in this thread other than rmb (who has been ignored).

please fill me in on why it's a terrible signing that demonstrates that benning is an idiot who can't do anything except get lucky on lottery picks. i need to know how it fits the narrative.

i'll hang up and listen.

I think it's a decent signing because I'm not as big of a believer in Boeser as most. Not totally confident in his injury history, his skating, and his poor defensive play, so I'm happy enough to take a bridge on him. The AAV is ... average, especially compared to the McAvoy contract.

If you think Boeser is a star and you are hyping the guy as a slam-dunk impact player, you should be furious about this deal, because they've saved $1 million or so for 3 years now and will pay that back several times over on the next contract if your evaluation is correct.

Based on the leaked $42 million offer from June and the comments from Boeser's agent this morning that they were 'really close' to a long-term deal earlier in the summer, it seems like Benning spending like a drunken sailor in UFA prevented them from executing their preferred course of action and signing Boeser to a long-term deal. Which isn't exactly great management, even if I'm ok with the result.

 

[xtra]

2019

Boeser: career 35g/82gp, $5.87m, $167k/g, expires RFA

Matthews: career 43g/82gp, $11.62m, $271k/g expires UFA

Marner: career 76p/82gp, $10.83m, $143k/pt, expires UFA

2017-2018

Horvat: last 3y = 57p/82gp, $5.5m, $96k/pt

Nylander: last 3y = 56p/82gp, $6.9m, $123k/p

That’s fake news you ignored the fact that they paid more to get UFA years from marner and nylander (maybe 1 year from Matthews also) That’s a pretty damn big part of the deal; also left out the fact that Bo is a UFA at the end of his deal while mentioning that for marner and Matthews. Kinda seems like you leaving out information that doesn’t help your case

Boesers contract is for 3 years while Mariners is for 6; boesers is going to get a raise also at the end of that 3 year deal more than likely into the 7.5+ range which would push the deal into a 33 mil 5 year deal (2 qualifying offers signed) so about the same as nylander and he gets to walk as a free agent if he wants.


Also let’s point out that marner and Matthews are the clear 2 best players in that picture by a fair margin; you should only really be comparing Brock; bo and nylander.

 

[MS]

I doubt that since I already demonstrated that Benning is spending much more efficiently than Dubas on young stars to the tune of 30-60%, just a few posts above yours, and it went unnoticed. Seems like you just want to keep attacking the same strawmen that you created for Benning years ago.

There are so many flaws in that argument I don't know where to start.

First off, you're comparing bridge deals to long-term deals.

Second, points-per-dollar is a lousy measure of contract effectiveness. Why sign a Sidney Crosby when you could sign 5 Jordie Benns and get more points for less money?

Third, you won't get an argument from me that the Matthews contract was absolutely idiotic. But that doesn't represent the league as a whole.

The two important RFA contract he's signed for young players have been ... average. It's in line with basically what every team does and really no different from the deals Philly or Boston or San Jose or whoever signed this summer. And I haven't criticized them.

Is his handling of RFAs one of the reasons he should be fired? No. But does doing a decent job retaining your own RFAs (something pretty much every team does a competent job of) outweigh the mountain of evidence that he's bad at pretty much everything else? Not a chance.

 

[I am toxic]

"Benning is a great GM, look at him drafting Boeser late in the first. A massive hit."

"Well, if that is so, then wouldn't you want to sign Boeser long term, if you believe he is a massive hit?"

"No, Benning is a great GM, a bridge deal for Boeser will show that his goal scoring was mostly a mirage. Dodged a bullet on that one."

"Well, . . . well, . . . I . . . I don't really know how to resp . . . "

"You're toxic."

 

[Motte and Bailey]

There are so many flaws in that argument I don't know where to start.

First off, you're comparing bridge deals to long-term deals.

Second, points-per-dollar is a lousy measure of contract effectiveness. Why sign a Sidney Crosby when you could sign 5 Jordie Benns and get more points for less money?

Third, you won't get an argument from me that the Matthews contract was absolutely idiotic. But that doesn't represent the league as a whole.

The two important RFA contract he's signed for young players have been ... average. It's in line with basically what every team does and really no different from the deals Philly or Boston or San Jose or whoever signed this summer. And I haven't criticized them.

Is his handling of RFAs one of the reasons he should be fired? No. But does doing a decent job retaining your own RFAs (something pretty much every team does a competent job of) outweigh the mountain of evidence that he's bad at pretty much everything else? Not a chance.

I get that long term deals take cap inflation into account so you would expect them to have a higher $/g or $/p but the cap ain’t going up 30-60% in the next 5 years.

I don’t see the problem with comparing Brock’s 3 year deal with Matthews’ 5 year deal. The term isn’t worlds apart.

Also in any case, Bo’s contract wasn’t a bridge it was a long term deal at a fantastic price point.

Points per dollar is fine when you isolate it to top 6 forwards which I did.

I am glad you are not critiquing Benning for his handling of RFA contracts. The way that the NHL is going, the handling of RFA contracts will become the #1 or #2 most important responsibility of GMs so if Benning is doing well on that front it’s a strong indicator that he’s a good GM.

 

[MS]

I get that long term deals take cap inflation into account so you would expect them to have a higher $/g or $/p but the cap ain’t going up 30-60% in the next 5 years.

I don’t see the problem with comparing Brock’s 3 year deal with Matthews’ 5 year deal. The term isn’t worlds apart.

Also in any case, Bo’s contract wasn’t a bridge it was a long term deal at a fantastic price point.

Points per dollar is fine when you isolate it to top 6 forwards which I did.

I am glad you are not critiquing Benning for his handling of RFA contracts. The way that the NHL is going, the handling of RFA contracts will become the #1 or #2 most important responsibility of GMs so if Benning is doing well on that front it’s a strong indicator that he’s a good GM.

Signing RFA contracts won't be that important and should be more the work of a legal-trained AGM. It's a pretty constant process where we see pretty much every team getting similar results, bizarre Matthews contract notwithstanding.

Horvat's contract was fair for where he was at the time after a disappointing 17-18 season. The two biggest contracts have been average, but most of the smaller RFA negotiations have been poor, with huge raises to players with little leverage like Granlund, Pouliot, Baertschi.

___________

The problem with points/$ is that a fungible, cheap PA Parenteau type that can score 45 points can be signed for cheap. So if you have a $6 million/60 point player, you're paying $4 million for that 15 point difference. With a $10 million/90 point player, you're paying $8 million for 45 extra points. Thus, the value/point you're getting over and above a cheap replacement-level top-6 player is actually higher for the $10 million player than the $6 million one, despite his overall $/points being lower.

 

[Fire Benning]

Most of Benning's RFA signings were giving fringe players like Pouliot, Granlund (could include Baertschi too) undeserved raises.

Horvat and Boeser got pretty much what you'd expect.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Sorry to intrude.

Don't you have any pro-Benning friends that you can celebrate Jimbo's competence with?

i don't post in here often. i made the post i did because i felt it should be pointed out that you guys were studiously ignoring a major event in canuck management land in a supposed management thread because it reflected well on benning. there was zero analysis in here of an event with huge short term and long term cap and other implications that rightly should generate extensive discussion in an actual management thread.

anyway, for the time being this is a thread titled "the management thread" not the "we hate benning thread" and it's also a public forum so i am not sure where you get off with the gtfo attitude. anyone can post here unless the rules have been changed.

i'll make you a deal: rename the thread title honestly as "a place to discuss management topics where we have thought of an angle to criticize benning" and i will leave you in perpetual peace to discuss your hearts out.

 

[MS]

i don't post in here often. i made the post i did because i felt it should be pointed out that you guys were studiously ignoring a major event in canuck management land in a supposed management thread because it reflected well on benning. there was zero analysis in here of an event with huge short term and long term cap and other implications that rightly should generate extensive discussion in an actual management thread.

anyway, for the time being this is a thread titled "the management thread" not the "we hate benning thread" and it's also a public forum so i am not sure where you get off with the gtfo attitude. anyone can post here unless the rules have been changed.

i'll make you a deal: rename the thread title honestly as "a place to discuss management topics where we have thought of an angle to criticize benning" and i will leave you in perpetual peace to discuss your hearts out.

There is literally a huge thread stickied about the Boeser signing where a ton of discussion is occurring.

The reason more discussion isn't happening about it in the management is that it's ... average. It's a standard RFA re-up at an ordinary price. It's something that isn't going to have a lot of hot takes on it and isn't going to change many opinions one way or the other.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

sorry to intrude, but shouldn't you guys be discussing whether the boeser signing is good management? i mean i know jumping the gun on dismissing all the prospects after the first game of the preseason is tempting and all, but the boeser signing is a key move for this franchise's management group so i am surprised that not a single person has mentioned it in this thread other than rmb (who has been ignored).

please fill me in on why it's a terrible signing that demonstrates that benning is an idiot who can't do anything except get lucky on lottery picks. i need to know how it fits the narrative.

i'll hang up and listen.

It's pretty cut and dry. Boeser needs to play hockey to continue his career and he'll only have the opportunity to do that in the NHL as a Canuck while they retain his rights. Both sides settled on a deal that worked at the moment and for the future while putting Brock in a prime spot in three years if he's still here.

What more is there to say?

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

i don't post in here often. i made the post i did because i felt it should be pointed out that you guys were studiously ignoring a major event in canuck management land in a supposed management thread because it reflected well on benning. there was zero analysis in here of an event with huge short term and long term cap and other implications that rightly should generate extensive discussion in an actual management thread.

anyway, for the time being this is a thread titled "the management thread" not the "we hate benning thread" and it's also a public forum so i am not sure where you get off with the gtfo attitude. anyone can post here unless the rules have been changed.

i'll make you a deal: rename the thread title honestly as "a place to discuss management topics where we have thought of an angle to criticize benning" and i will leave you in perpetual peace to discuss your hearts out.

Benning has never really been criticized for his RFA extensions. People were also happy with the Horvat extension. I don't think anyone really takes issue with that aspect of his management, so I don't really know what you're getting at.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Benning has never really been criticized for his RFA extensions. People were also happy with the Horvat extension. I don't think anyone really takes issue with that aspect of his management, so I don't really know what you're getting at.

i will pretend that your first sentence is a true statement to avoid being sidetracked.

if he makes decent rfa signings you'd think that would come up in the management thread discussions about the time he makes a decent rfa signing. you'd think doubly so when so many blanket critical statements are made about his management acumen on all matters seemingly completely uninterrupted by a major rfa signing occurring. credit where credit is due and such.

 

[Hit the post]

Benning has never really been criticized for his RFA extensions.

Sbisa.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

i will pretend that your first sentence is a true statement to avoid being sidetracked.

if he makes decent rfa signings you'd think that would come up in the management thread discussions about the time he makes a decent rfa signing. you'd think doubly so when so many blanket critical statements are made about his management acumen on all matters seemingly completely uninterrupted by a major rfa signing occurring. credit where credit is due and such.

Almost every RFA signing league-wide is reasonable. This shouldn’t be a big indicator of a successful GM since every GM is able to do it. You’re grasping at straws to praise Benning, it’s a bit sad.

 

[MS]

i will pretend that your first sentence is a true statement to avoid being sidetracked.

if he makes decent rfa signings you'd think that would come up in the management thread discussions about the time he makes a decent rfa signing. you'd think doubly so when so many blanket critical statements are made about his management acumen on all matters seemingly completely uninterrupted by a major rfa signing occurring. credit where credit is due and such.

RFA signings are the equivalent of putting your pants on in the morning for a GM. The asset is protected, there are tons of comparables, and they all usually come in in the same range. Other than the Toronto Matthews contract, can you really name any teams who are 'horrible' at RFA retention?

It would be quite a feat if he was consistently making a mess of them, since no GM in the NHL really does. Although in fact he has consistently overpaid lower-roster UFAs and awarded bizarre raises to guys with no leverage.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Almost every RFA signing league-wide is reasonable. This shouldn’t be a big indicator of a successful GM since every GM is able to do it. You’re grasping at straws to praise Benning, it’s a bit sad.

so if i go look in the management threads of other teams who have recently signed major rfas i will not find much discussion at all of such signings and what little i will find will blandly assess the signings as reasonable?

ok

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

so if i go look in the management threads of other teams who have recently signed major rfas i will not find much discussion at all of such signings and what little i will find will blandly assess the signings as reasonable?

ok

What recent RFA signings do you view as unreasonable then?

If we’re going to praise Benning for RFA extensions then we might as well start praising him for being able to ice a roster under the cap and not finish dead last in the league.

I don’t understand how the bar is so low for some of you.

 

[krutovsdonut]

What recent RFA signings do you view as unreasonable then?

If we’re going to praise Benning for RFA extensions then we might as well start praising him for being able to ice a roster under the cap and not finish dead last in the league.

I don’t understand how the bar is so low for some of you.

draisaitl, matthews, nylander, marner, trouba, butcher, compher, pionk and binnington were all poor rfa signings in my view. aho was forced but also too much.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Signing RFA contracts won't be that important and should be more the work of a legal-trained AGM. It's a pretty constant process where we see pretty much every team getting similar results, bizarre Matthews contract notwithstanding.

Um I don’t think you really mean that. Where is Matthew Tkachuk right now? Mikko Rantanen? Patrik Laine? Brayden Point? If these guys are so easy to sign that every GM can do it then why do we see all these difficult negotiations? Why did Nylander hold out? Why did the Jets have to trade Trouba? The list goes on and on. Dealing with RFAs is getting harder and harder and GMs like Dubas are caving left right and center. It’s a huge part of the job now and increasingly difficult. Thats a fact.

Horvat's contract was fair for where he was at the time after a disappointing 17-18 season. The two biggest contracts have been average, but most of the smaller RFA negotiations have been poor, with huge raises to players with little leverage like Granlund, Pouliot, Baertschi.

Ok.. not sure how Granlund at $1.3m or Baertschi at $3.3m or Pouliot at $1.1m were poor signings.. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

The problem with points/$ is that a fungible, cheap PA Parenteau type that can score 45 points can be signed for cheap. So if you have a $6 million/60 point player, you're paying $4 million for that 15 point difference. With a $10 million/90 point player, you're paying $8 million for 45 extra points. Thus, the value/point you're getting over and above a cheap replacement-level top-6 player is actually higher for the $10 million player than the $6 million one, despite his overall $/points being lower.

Except I’m not comparing star players with replacement players. I’m comparing stars with stars so it’s a perfectly valid use of points per dollar.

 

[MS]

Um I don’t think you really mean that. Where is Matthew Tkachuk right now? Mikko Rantanen? Patrik Laine? Brayden Point? If these guys are so easy to sign that every GM can do it then why do we see all these difficult negotiations? Why did Nylander hold out? Why did the Jets have to trade Trouba? The list goes on and on. Dealing with RFAs is getting harder and harder and GMs like Dubas are caving left right and center. It’s a huge part of the job now and increasingly difficult. Thats a fact.

Those guys are ... where Boeser was yesterday? They'll probably all sign too as there's been a huge run of guys in the last week.

Winnipeg had to trade Trouba because he didn't want to play in Canada. If we'd drafted Trouba, we'd have had to trade him too.

Ok.. not sure how Granlund at $1.3m or Baertschi at $3.3m or Pouliot at $1.1m were poor signings.. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Granlund got a 60% raise after a year where he scored 5 non-EN ES points.

Pouliot got a 40% raise after a year where he was possibly the worst regular defender in the NHL and should have been thanking his lucky stars to even have a job.

Baertschi got a $10 million deal with a career high of 35 points, coming off a year where he was completely useless when not on the top line.

Except I’m not comparing star players with replacement players. I’m comparing stars with stars so it’s a perfectly valid use of points per dollar.

You're not understanding.

What you're paying for aren't total points, it's the difference in points between your RFA and an easy-to-sign replacement player.

Getting 45 points above replacement for $8 million more than the replacement player is a better deal than getting 15 points above replacement for $4 million more, even though the points/$ of the second player is better.

 

[tyhee]

I recently saw a post that suggested Benning gets an A for his work this offseason. Further there have been suggestions that Benning has improved through the years. I think he has, though the bar was so low that improvement doesn’t get to a very high level.

This post analyzes moves made by the Canucks in 2019 to date.

1. Jan 2-traded Anders Nilsson and Darren Archibald to Ottawa for Mike McKenna, Tom Pyatt and a 2019-6th round draft pick. Later events would change this to essentially Anders Nilsson, Darren Archibald and a 2020-7th round pick for Marek Mazanec, Tom Pyatt and a 2029-6th round draft pick.

Jan 3-placed McKenna on waivers, where he was claimed and lost

Analysis-The long-term impact of this trade, other than the egg on the faces of the Canucks, is negligible. It was done to get Demko to the NHL. The players and picks involved are very likely to make no difference whatsoever to the long-term well-being of the Canucks. They were probably going to allow Nilsson to leave in free agency anyway, Darren Archibald is a marginal depth forward who turned 29 shortly after the trade, Mazanec was intended as a short-term minor league fill in, Pyatt became a UFA and without an NHL offer signed to play in Sweden and that leaves the 6th and 7th round draft picks. All pretty mundane and unimportant in the long term.

Of course, in the short-term the Canucks’ supposed replacement for Demko with the Comets was lost on waivers because he was in the NHL at the time, leading to some tough times for the Comets, eventually the Canucks having no NHL-contracted goalie in the minors and using DiPietro as an NHL backup who had to play a game, getting shelled. It was an embarrassment, bad for the AHL team last season and not a good look for DiPietro or the organization.

Grade-Fail, though ultimately not important.

2. Jan 17, 2019-traded Michael del Zotto to Anaheim for Luke Schenn and a 2020-7th round pick.

Analysis: del Zotto was overpaid and of no consequence. Schenn turned out to be useful, first in Utica and then with the Canucks, leaving in free agency.

Grade- solid, though of no long term consequence as Schenn wasn’t extended.

3. Feb 12, 2019-traded 2020-7th round pick to Rangers for Marek Mazanek. Analyzed under # 1 above.

4. Feb 16, 2019-traded Sam Gagner to Oilers for Ryan Spooner.

Analysis: This was a trade of two players who weren’t in the plans for their respective teams and who were taking up cap space. To that extent the trade was of little consequence. The Canucks gave up the more useful player, but they’d put themselves in the position of cutting ties with Gagner while he was still Canuck property. Much as I’d like to go into analysis of the earlier events regarding Gagner (imo mishandled in his signing, then mishandled in his assignment to the Marlies, then mishandled in not being called up as an early injury replacement and kept with the team) it really relates to earlier actions rather than this one.

Grade: I find it hard to ignore the Canucks failing to use Gagner earlier as a callup from the Marlies and not keeping him when they ultimately called him up. In the long run it isn’t going to affect the Canucks. I’ll give the trade a very generous Pass. No long-term consequence.

5. Feb 19 Signed Michael Leighton as UFA, waived and assigned to Utica.

Analysis-no long term consequence. It was obvious to everyone they needed to sign someone like Leighton as insurance to make it through the season as the organization was short on depth goaltending on an NHL contract.

Grade-none. Inconsequential long-term, completely obvious move short-term.

6. Feb 25 trade Jonathan Dahlen to San Jose for Linus Karlsson

Analysis-a failing prospect for a much less talented prospect.

Grade-pass. Inconsequential

7. Feb 25, 2019 trade Erik Gudbranson to Pittsburgh for Tanner Pearson

Analysis-Gudbranson was overpaid and had been extremely ineffective in Vancouver. His ability is limited and the Canucks’ style didn’t suit him. Pearson had previously been effective but was having a terrible season and so this was a trade of overpaid, ineffective veterans.

After the trade both players were effective for their new teams during the balance of the regular season.

Grade: Good, solid trade.

8. Mar 10-signed 2018-1st round pick Quinn Hughes to a 3 year entry level contract, burning his first year.

Analysis-I’m against burning entry level contract years for players who will be signing anyway, as Hughes imo clearly was. Other than that, signing him was obvious enough. The first year cap hit was high as it was signed after the start of the season but that fact was of no harm because the 2018-19 Canucks had extra cap space.

Grade- It was obvious to sign him. I don’t like the unnecessary burning of a year on the elc.

9. Mar 12-signed undrafted 24 year old college defenceman Josh Teves to a one year entry level contract to expire at the end of the 2018-19 season, so burning an ufa season. The cap hit was high as it was signed after the start of the season but that fact was of no consequence because the 2018-19 Canucks had extra cap space.

Analysis-Too early to tell much. Likely of little consequence because Teves chances of making the NHL are low.

10. Mar 15-Utica signed rookie free agent Seamus Malone to a professional try-out contract.

Analysis/Grade-I wouldn’t normally include Utica contracts but Malone was signed as a prospect and in the small amount he got to play appeared to be a good signing for the Comets.

11. Mar 16-signed 2018-2nd round pick Jett Woo to an entry level contract.

Analysis-Woo had a good year in the WHL and his signing was obvious.

12. April 1-signed 24 year old undrafted college free agent Brogan Rafferty to a 1 year elc, expiring at the close of the 2018-19 season.

Analysis-Too early to tell much. Likely of little consequence. The interesting thing in both the Rafferty and Teves signings is the choice to sign them and burn a year off their contracts immediately instead of signing them to ATO contracts in the AHL and entry level contracts for 2019-20. More on this below.

13. April 1-signed undrafted college netminder Jake Kielly to a 2 year elc.

Analysis: too early to tell whether this will work out. Kielly was effective in university and is intended to provide goaltending depth for the organization as well as potentially having some upside.

14. April 24-extended Thatcher Demko for 2 seasons

Analysis: Obvious extension. Imo the Canucks added an amount for potential above what was warranted based on very limited NHL time to date, but the AAV still is fairly low.

Grade: nothing to say here. A high school kid could have successfully negotiated this deal. In situations like this I may not always give grades.

15. April 27-Mazanec signed to play next season in Europe

Analysis-Nobody thought Mazanec would or should be extended. Obvious, inconsequential.

16. June 20, 2019 Alex Edler extended 2 seasons @ $ 6 million per season.

Analysis: Of course, there is considerable sentiment that the Canucks would have been better off if they could have arranged a trade for him some time over the past season or two. I agree with that sentiment. There has also been considerable argument over whether a deal could have been done in which Edler might have waived if the Canucks had taken a different approach.

I am with those that would have been happier if the Canucks could have gotten some high quality futures for Edler. That being said, it was never going to happen with JB as the GM. Before he was signed to an extension, it looked like he needed the team to be successful in 2019-20 and keeping Edler improves the team’s chances of success for the coming season.

That being said, the term isn’t too long and the cap hit, though it probably is over what the market would have brought Edler, isn’t too bad.

Grade: On direction and planning I would assign this a fail. On the terms of the extension I would give it a solid pass.

17. Trade 1st round pick in 2020 or 2021 (protected in 2020, not in 2021) and a third round pick to Tampa for JT Miller. (Technically the deal included Marek Mazanec, but since he had already signed to play in Europe, the Canucks needed to clear a contract spot to make the trade and neither the Canucks nor the Lightning had any reason to be interested in him, it was clear that the inclusion of Mazanec had no consequence other than to allow the trade to be made.)

Analysis: A. The Lightning were in cap trouble and Miller was a $5.25 million 3rd liner for them, coming off a 13 goal season in which he had trouble establishing a place for himself in the lineup. Whether that could have been used to lessen what had to be given up for him is impossible to know, but it is pretty clear that the Canucks paid full value for him.

B. Far more importantly to me is that the Canucks were clearly paying future assets, potentially important future assets, for present improvement. It is the kind of deal a team makes to get them over a hump to a desired level of success.

In the Canucks’ case that hump is to improve their chances of making the playoffs. For that they’ve given up a 1st rounder and a 3rd rounder.

To me that is a mistake. Merely making the playoffs isn’t a sufficiently high goal to be making moves that are very likely to damage the team in the longer term. The picks could have turned into the equivalent of Elias Pettersson and Braden Point or they could have burned out to be the equivalent of Nicklas Jensen and David Honzik, but the likelihood is that the there would have been future value and the usefulness of an 18 year old will last a lot longer than that of a 26 year old, quite aside from the additional cap space available from the young players’ entry level contracts compared with Miller’s $5.25 million cap hit.

I actually expect that Miller will be a good player for the Canucks and those who value current results highly will think it a great trade, but regardless of that on team direction alone, this trade gets a FAIL.

A good porition of that Fail has to be allocated to Aquilini for leaving Benning, at the time, as a lame duck GM in the position where the next season was more important than the future.

18. June 22 trade draft pick to Sabres for draft picks. The trade looks fair enough, neither good nor bad unless one of the teams hits it lucky with the acquired pick(s).

19. June 22 trade Tom Pyatt and a 6th to San Jose for Francis Perron and a 7th.

Analysis: The Canucks weren’t about to extend Pyatt. The Sharks may not have extended Perron. Perron is a prospect who if nothing else figures to probably be useful in Utica. I think a downgrade from a 6th to a 7th for that is ok.

Grade: Pass, higher if Perron makes the NHL with the Canucks before his new extension expires. Unlikely to matter much in the long run.

20. The Canucks made some draft picks. That can be analyzed in a few years-right now we’d just be guessing whether they will turn out well or not.

21. June 25-The Canucks did not issue qualifying offers to Ben Hutton, Brendan Gaunce, Derrick Pouliot, Markus Granlund or Jan-Pavel Laplante.

Analysis:
Hutton-The Canucks were stuck, having given him a contract that was way too much when his elc expired so that his qualifying offer would have been more than his value at $2.8 million. There was also some concern about what he might have gotten in arbitration. I never thought he’d get that $4 million that people talked about but he’d probably get more than the amount the Canucks would have been willing to pay him. Although it is at least partly caused by overpaying him on his last contract, the decision to not extend him gets a Pass.

Gaunce-The Canucks had already replaced Gaunce in the summer of 2018 by signing Beagle, Schaller and Roussel. Gaunce would have been far cheaper than any of them. When he got a chance to play in Vancouver this past season he was effective. He was effective in Utica for much of the season but fell off badly at the end (perhaps when he realized there was no future for him in the organization.) I don’t think you build a successful team by paying good money to 4th line grinders. Gaunce was a cheap 4th line grinder. Although it might be said they’d made the decision a year earlier, I can’t bring myself to give this a pass. Fail.

Pouliot, Granlund-These could be open to argument but I think most people would agree with or be ok with the decisions not to extend Pouliot and Granlund. Pass.

Laplante-obvious decision

22. June 25-The Canucks issued qualifying offers to Brock Boeser, Brogan Rafferty, Francis Perron, Josh Leivo, Josh Teves, Nikolai Goldobin, Tyler Motte and Reid Boucher.

Analysis-Nothing much to say here. This was mostly obvious and the only one in doubt would have been Boucher. For making qualifying offers, Pass. I haven’t considered the QO terms.

23. June 29-bought out Ryan Spooner.
Analysis-Obvious decision.

24. June 30-Derek Dorsett, Evan McEneny, Michael Leighton, Tanner Kero and Luke Schenn not extended, became unrestricted free agents.

Analysis: Dorsett and McEneny were obvious for health reasons. Leighton was obvious because of age. I suspect the Canucks would have wanted to keep Kero and Schenn but don’t know whether they could have gotten them back. Kero may have been bound to go elsewhere no matter what because he probably rated a callup last season and didn’t get one, leading him to look for an organization where he might be seriously considered. Schenn, I’m guessing, simply was put aside until later by Canucks’ management and by the time they got back to him he’d decided to move on. Perhaps the Canucks wanted to “upgrade” and already were looking at Myers.

Grade: Regarding Schenn, fail. I believe they could have gotten him extended if they offered him an extension as soon as it was clear he was useful on the Canucks. I would much rather use $1 million cap space for a season or two on Luke Schenn than pay Tyler Myers $ 6 million annually for 5 seasons.

Regarding the rest: Pass.

25. July 1-. Free agent Frenzy.

Jordie Benn-solid value. Good signing.
Oscar Fantenberg-Pass. I’ve never paid any attention to him so have trouble guessing his value, but at least he appears to have been an adequate depth d-man last season.
Tyler Graovac-Probably overpayment at the minor league level. Depth signing. Pass.

Tyler Myers 5 years $30 million-Last season Myers was a 3rd pair defenceman. He has all sorts of physical ability and has produced offensively while being poor defensively, generally due to poor decision-making. Most Canucks fans will disagree with me but I’d much rather pay Luke Schenn $ 1 million for a couple of seasons of sound defence than commit $30 million to an offensive defenceman who has been poor defensively and whose best season was as a rookie a decade ago. Horrible use of cap space going forward. He’s going to look good at times and look like a hero occasionally while increasing the excitement level, but FAIL.

Zane McIntyre-he must have been signed for insurance in case Bachman is unavailable. Again, probably overpaid at the minor league level (same $400K as Graovac.) Not a harmful signing, though how they fit in Bachman, McIntyre, Kielly and DiPietro when only the last two can be sent to the ECHL without their consent is an issue the Canucks will need to work out. Pass

Justin Bailey-Pass

Micheal Ferland-This signing surprised me as it was under what had been predicted Ferland would get, it was after he’d been on the market for a while and there was no reason to think the Canucks would be a desirable spot for him. I have to assume he wasn’t getting the offers expected for him.

This signing is tough for me to judge because I had figured Ferland was overvalued in the market and had hoped that the Canucks would stay away from him, but they ended up getting him for quite a bit less than I’d thought possible. Not really understanding what is happening, I’d give this a Pass. It could be better than that, or there may have been a reason other teams weren’t lining up with better (or equivalent offers.

26. July-> extensions

Tyler Motte-of course they’d extend him, though the price looks a little higher than I’d expect for his level of production
Josh Leivo-1 yr, $1.5 million-Again, of course they’d extent him but the price looks a little high to me.
Francis Perron-1 yr, 2 way, 715/100. Solid value, good extension.
Reid Boucher-1 yr, 2 way, $750K/450K. $450K seems like a lot to pay a winger who will almost certainly spend the season in the minors, but Boucher is at least proven at the AHL level and paying him in the minors doesn’t affect the salary cap. Pass.

Brogan Rafferty and Josh Teves, each for 2 years with the second year a 1 way deal at $700K and the 1st year having guaranteed minimum salary of $150K.

Analysis-What??? 1 way deals in the future only for 2 players not hightly touted coming out of university, each 24 years of age as they began their pro careers and who have only played, in the case of Teves, one professional game and in the case of Rafferty, 2 professional games, each without a point and each -1.

On the face of it, this seems like extreme overpayment. Both players are guaranteed NHL money in 2020-21 without having shown they have the ability to play at that level.

Having gotten their rights to the next contract by signing them to entry level contracts there is no reasonable explanation for these overpayments other than to assume it was verbally agreed at the time of the entry level contract signings and part and parcel of it.

Giving this kind of money to largely unheralded 24 year old undrafted university players is truly unusual. The Canucks have committed three seasons to these college players and the more common way of doing it would have been to cut that time down by giving them ato contracts for the end of 2018-19 and entry level contracts for 2019-20. Then if they didn’t work out the Canucks could cut ties, if they appeared ok the Canucks would still hold their rights and could give them extensions.

Given that the Canucks didn’t do that, presumably Benning gave them the deals to entice them to sign with the Canucks. I’ll withold giving grades as the Canuck scouts may have seen something to make them really high on these guys (and Rafferty was widely complimented for his 2 games in the spring.) On the face of it I’d normally say these deals were worth a Fail. Otoh, with the numbers low enough that their contracts won’t affect cap space if they don’t make it, if they truly have potential these would be great signings. We’ll have to wait and see.

Nikolai Goldobin and Brock Boeser extensions-both seem reasonable value to me, even with Boeser’s next QO increased by back-end loading his contract. Pass.