Post-Game Talk: The Canucks: Where wins are made up, and defense doesn’t matter

[Zippgunn]

He was one of the worst goalies in the league last year. But as usual, Jimbo's pro scouting is stuck in 3 years ago.

The whole point of dropping from Markstrom to Demko should have been to save money on the goalie position in the short term, to invest in keeping Tanev/Toffoli and getting through the summer 2021 cap crunch. Instead they spent right up to what they were spending on goaltending before.

And that 2nd year is the real killer. If it was 1 year, you could probably excuse it. People were celebrating it at the time because of the expansion draft or some nonsense but committing $5 million to a backup for 21-22 given our current situation was absolute madness.

Do you honestly think that the SIXTH year of a Markstrom contract would be a triumph?

 

[4Twenty]

Among goalies with a mimimum 300 minutes:

View attachment 393691

Both also have more goals allowed than expected. Still somewhat early, shown by the best goalie in the league last season being 5th worst.

He seems like a good guy but the Holtby signing is quietly awful.

@Zippgunn

The goalies are not performing as expected. They’ve been worse.

They’re the worst at stopping the High danger.

Markstrom is much better.

 

[I am toxic]

Any post claiming someone is underestimating Marky's playing is out to lunch. No one wrote that. I'm shocked posters are not all over this blatant misrepresentation.

Any claim that Benning improved with his UFA signings or other aspects of his job from 2018 is out to lunch. I suppose I could go back and link the posts to those claims, but I'm pretty sure I don't need to bother.

At the end of last season, the poll about "success" either had a narrow definition of success, or didn't define success at all. Any post that places any stock in such a misleading piece of tripe is out to lunch, and I would not be surprised to see that it follows along the lines of such out to lunch postings such as Benning voted 6th best GM, Canucks prospect pool ranked 6th, and Canucks are in best position to end Canada's Cup drought.

You know what's not out to lunch? @MS 's analysis of the Canucks. He probably bats well over .900 - oops, did I use three decimal places? Gosh, I hope no one nitpicks that.

 

[VibinCanuck]

I finally watched the Green post game presser.

That Q&A with Paterson was absolutely pathetic, just running away from answering the questions showing zero accountability with broad answers and no passion. He should've called out Miller publicly, he had more than enough reason to do it, yet he dodged the question.

No wonder this team plays with zero passion when veterans can just make mistakes with zero accountability.

 

[MS]

Anyone blaming Holtby and Demko for this current gong-show needs a new prescription for contact lenses. The score could easily have been 8-1 last night given the number of clear-cut chances the Leafs had.

Benning gets lots of brickbats for some of the position players he's signed, but Holtby made a lot of sense....a veteran goalie, without any trade protection and only signed for two seasons. Once Markstrom left, he was the next best UFA goalie out there.

The underlying stats in these last two games with the Leafs tell the story. Outshot by a 2-1 margin, quality scoring chances given up at a 3-1 margin. Canucks are the most penalized teams in the league for the simple reason they're chasing the play all night, every night.

This is a bad hockey team right now folks. And the goalies are left flapping in the breeze every game.

I disagree with you vehemently; Holtby STOPPED 4 breakaways the other night but you're saying that he needs to stop ALL of them as well as the multitude of 2 on 1's and clear cut shots from the slot. I count perhaps 4 not-great goals by these two this whole season. Marky would not have "saved" any of these recent games and I'm guessing his save % would be under .900 just like Demko and Holtby. You "feel a bit" for them? The Dan Cloutier comparison is a complete insult to these two; remember he has the worst save % of any NHL playoff goalies with as many starts as him. He was TERRIBLE. Your affection for Markstrom seems to have blinded you to how bad the skaters on this team are. There was no way JB was going to sign another "Loui" style contract with an aging goalie who has demonstrated that he is entering his "injury prone" years (and who has only been good for a couple of years after taking a decade to get there) so you should get over that. I feel that anybody who has watched these games in their entirety and who thinks the goaltending is to blame is beyond my help; they are blinded by either Benning-hate or Marky-love.

Nobody is 'blaming' the goalies. This team sucks right now regardless of goaltending.

However, the goalies also haven't been very good. Especially Holtby.

If you think Markstrom would be under .900 behind this team, you're dreaming. I really can't say any more than that.

 

[I am toxic]

Nobody is 'blaming' the goalies. This team sucks right now regardless of goaltending.

However, the goalies also haven't been very good. Especially Holtby.

If you think Markstrom would be under .900 behind this team, you're dreaming. I really can't say any more than that.

Willie D love makes people do strange things.

 

[DANOZ28]

are you guys tanking for luke hughes? all kidding aside where is the team that beat my wild last year? is it all the loss of markstrom?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Nobodys underestimating Markys playing
Yes Benning signings and trades did improve from 2018
All the experts agreed at the end of last season, that the Canucks had a very promising future, it wasn't a hallucination
Must be galling, to be upset at every prospect pool ranking and success the team has..

As the straw, and bait posts start to pile up..Someone is certainly giving Johnny Canuck a run for his money.

 

[MS]

Do you honestly think that the SIXTH year of a Markstrom contract would be a triumph?

Put it this way :

The 6th year on Markstrom's contract at $6 million couldn't look any worse than the first year of Holtby's contract at $5 million looks now.

Also, if that negotiation was handled differently, I highly doubt it would have taken 6 years to sign him.

If you sign a Vezina-calibre goalie and he delivers you 3-4 elite seasons, you're OK with eating that last year. It's crazy that people have drawn a line here after the amount of lunatic contracts and wasted money on garbage players who never even had a chance of moving the needle.

 

[iceburg]

are you guys tanking for luke hughes? all kidding aside where is the team that beat my wild last year? is it all the loss of markstrom?

Loss of 4 well-liked, strong contributing players (Tanev, Markstrom, Stecher, Toffoli) through poor asset management causing team to quit.

 

[Zippgunn]

@Zippgunn

The goalies are not performing or expected. They’ve been worse.

They’re the worst at stopping the High danger.

Markstrom is much better.

THAT'S the stat you are going to use to prove your point? Hell, almost EVERY save our goalies have made has been "high danger". I've heard nobody outside of this board who has blamed the goalies for our troubles, no media people or fans of other teams. Markstrom might be a bit better but let's revisit his stats when his contract gets going. I'm starting to think that a lot of Benning-haters here are mad that he didn't sign Marky to that ridiculous deal because they wanted to whine about it for 6 years...

 

[Josepho]

you do realize it's possible to respect the long-term decision to not re-sign markstrom while also acknowledging that our current goalies (especially the one making 4.3 million) haven't been very good

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Put it this way :

The 6th year on Markstrom's contract at $6 million couldn't look any worse than the first year of Holtby's contract at $5 million looks now.

Also, if that negotiation was handled differently, I highly doubt it would have taken 6 years to sign him.

If you sign a Vezina-calibre goalie and he delivers you 3-4 elite seasons, you're OK with eating that last year. It's crazy that people have drawn a line here after the amount of lunatic contracts and wasted money on garbage players who never even had a chance of moving the needle.

You said the Canucks were right to not sign Marky to that contract..So ,you're retracting all that now?

 

[MS]

Again, the whole point of letting Markstrom go wasn't the term, it was the cap crunch. Saving $5 million by going with Demko and going cheap on the backup, and investing that in keeping Tanev and Toffoli ... is a legitimate plan that makes sense.

Letting Markstrom go and then re-investing $5 million into a vastly inferior goalie is, again, just pure madness. Like, the 'big fear' is that in the last year of Markstrom's contract at $6 million of a $100 million cap he throws a .895 on the board. But somehow it's a good idea to spend $5 million of an $80 million cap on a guy who *already* threw a .895 on the board.

 

[Josepho]

anywho, i thought there was a marginal chance holtby could return somewhat to form, but that's clearly not going to happen.

unrelated, holtby and greiss struggling this season really reinforces how absurdly well goalies do in trotz's system.

 

[MS]

You said the Canucks were right to not sign Marky to that contract..So ,you're retracting all that now?

What I said :

1) I don't think it would have taken the deal Calgary gave him to re-sign him

2) Even if it was the Calgary deal, if the team wasn't horribly mis-managed and had appropriate cap space and roster planning, of course you give Markstrom that deal.

3) Given our massive cap crunch and salary mess, moving from Markstrom to Demko/cheap backup to save $5 million and taking that money to invest in the rest of the roster made sense.

4) As soon as you blow $5 million on Holtby, the reasoning for (3) goes completely out the window. Signing Markstrom was a better idea than what they did.

 

[DETROIT 101]

DETROIT 101

Lol/ first goal power play/. 23 /. Second goal. 23 makes 4 bad plays on one play lol. First lost battle on board s. Second he back up. Third he must the pass. Fourth he fell down. Lol. Blame the cheapest player on them. Third goal 21 does not get his man. His man passes it / 23 did not push his guy To side of net. Fourth /we’ll come on/. 9. And goalie wtf. And the last one come on what was you watching 21 was inside to low and did cover point shot. Lol. Like 20mill. And blame a kid with 9 games and and min $700,000​

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Again, the whole point of letting Markstrom go wasn't the term, it was the cap crunch. Saving $5 million by going with Demko and going cheap on the backup, and investing that in keeping Tanev and Toffoli ... is a legitimate plan that makes sense.

Letting Markstrom go and then re-investing $5 million into a vastly inferior goalie is, again, just pure madness. Like, the 'big fear' is that in the last year of Markstrom's contract at $6 million of a $100 million cap he throws a .895 on the board. But somehow it's a good idea to spend $5 million of an $80 million cap on a guy who *already* threw a .895 on the board.

Holtby was only signed for 2 years..not 6..with no ED protection
Marky left because of Demko and the ED..not the cap (you know that already)
Debatable to sign Tanev to a 4 year retirement deal, Toffoli was clear miss by Benning.

 

[Peen]

Pom, you have used the same argument of “would you have offered him the same contract that he got from calgary” numerous times in the past month even though you know it’s flawed.

It’s been reported numerous times by Dhaliwal that it would have taken far less to sign him the summer before and that all the ufa camps raised their price for not figuring it out before the bubble began.

They got desperate and offered him an offer that he would have taken earlier (5x5.5) when he was already pissed off about how negotiations went and ignored them.

It’s disingenuous to assume that it would have taken the same contract to sign him here. Same with Toffoli and Tanev.

those guys would have all taken less to stay but negotiations were handed poorly.

It’s a bad faith argument that you’ve used numerous times as a cop out.

 

[MS]

Holtby was only signed for 2 years..not 6..with no ED protection
Marky left because of Demko and the ED..not the cap (you know that already)
Debatable to sign Tanev to a 4 year deal, Toffoli was clear miss by Benning.

Getting through the 2020 and 2021 offseasons and maintaining momentum and a quality roster was far more important than whether or not Markstrom is great in the last year of his contract.

Again, with Holtby you're paying basically the same cap % in 2020-21 to a guy who has just turned out your 'worst case' season for Markstrom in 2o25. The whole thing makes zero sense.

If they had let Markstrom go, signed a cheap backup, and invested those savings in keeping good players, I would be supporting that decision. It makes logical sense. If they signed Markstrom because of how important he was to the team, I would be supporting that decision. It makes logical sense. But letting Markstrom go and then blowing all the cap savings you get by dumping your Vezina-calibre goalie on a much worse goalie is just beyond inept.

 

[MS]

Pom, you have used the same argument of “would you have offered him the same contract that he got from calgary” numerous times in the past month even though you know it’s flawed.

It’s been reported numerous times by Dhaliwal that it would have taken far less to sign him the summer before and that all the ufa camps raised their price for not figuring it out before the bubble began.

They got desperate and offered him an offer that he would have taken earlier (5x5.5) when he was already pissed off about how negotiations went and ignored them.

It’s disingenuous to assume that it would have taken the same contract to sign him here. Same with Toffoli and Tanev.

those guys would have all taken less to stay but negotiations were handed poorly.

It’s a bad faith argument that you’ve used numerous times as a cop out.

I will keep calling this the Christian Ehrhoff Fallacy until it sticks as a thing.

The contract a UFA got with another team is not automatically what it would have taken your team to sign him before he hit the open market.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Pom, you have used the same argument of “would you have offered him the same contract that he got from calgary” numerous times in the past month even though you know it’s flawed.

It’s been reported numerous times by Dhaliwal that it would have taken far less to sign him the summer before and that all the ufa camps raised their price for not figuring it out before the bubble began.

They got desperate and offered him an offer that he would have taken earlier (5x5.5) when he was already pissed off about how negotiations went and ignored them.

It’s disingenuous to assume that it would have taken the same contract to sign him here. Same with Toffoli and Tanev.

those guys would have all taken less to stay but negotiations were handed poorly.

It’s a bad faith argument that you’ve used numerous times as a cop out.

It doesnt matter how much they were offering him (which was close to calgarys)..without a NMC..He wasn't staying ..right?

Markstrom himself stated that the NMC was of utmost importance to him.
Markstrom: It was huge to get a NMC & have a home for the next 6 years

 

[valkynax]

Holtby was only signed for 2 years..not 6..with no ED protection
Marky left because of Demko and the ED..not the cap (you know that already)
Debatable to sign Tanev to a 4 year retirement deal, Toffoli was clear miss by Benning.

We don't have money for Markstrom or Tanev or Toffoli, but we sure as hell have cash to burn on Sutter Eriksson and Roussell.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

We don't have money for Markstrom or Tanev or Toffoli, but we sure as hell have cash to burn on Sutter Eriksson and Roussell.

Nobodys arguing that contacts like these mitigated Bennings flexibility with the cap.

 

[kanuck87]

Holtby was only signed for 2 years..not 6..with no ED protection
Marky left because of Demko and the ED..not the cap (you know that already)
Debatable to sign Tanev to a 4 year retirement deal, Toffoli was clear miss by Benning.

Schmidt's current deal ends when he is 34, one year younger than Tanev.

Tanev's is a retirement contract, but Schmidt's isn't?