The Management Thread | White Hole Edition

[Fatass]

Schmidty and Juolevi maybe

Our D cupboards are kind of bare.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

It has nothing to do with valuing MacEwen. It’s about steering well clear of an albatross contract.

Although Drance recently confirmed suspicions @MS had that this management thinks they needed to protect Myers anyway.

It's laughably sad that they'd consider protecting Myers.

If anything you sell Sutter/Pearson and use those assets as sweetener to get rid of contracts.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

Our D cupboards are kind of bare.

Heres to bare D cups...

 

[Bubbles]

The expansion draft does complicate the situation but we could have put Marky on a 2 year contract that is loaded with bonuses that Seattle would have to pay out for example.

Why would Markstrom do that? He was reaching UFA at the peak of his value, he was the best goalie available. He was looking for a long term contract, the contract that should set him up for life.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

And not because they have a ton of value but because they have to select somebody and those guys are on cheap and/or expiring contracts I believe.

Exactly. Though if Lind continues to torch the AHL, it might be worth using a protection spot up front on him.

 

[Hit the post]

Exactly. Though if Lind continues to torch the AHL, it might be worth using a protection spot up front on him.

True he certainly looks promising so far.

 

[RandV]

There is no way in hell Seattle is taking Holtby *or* Myers. There will be 10 better goalies than Holtby available on better contracts, and Myers is a bottom-10 contract in the league.

The Canucks will lose one of Motte, MacEwen, or Lind, I'm pretty convinced.

Not to mention Holtby will make $2.9M salary this season and $5.7M next. Benning probably went in with the intention of Holtby being the guy for Seattle to pick, but then it came time to negotiate the details on the contract and how it turned out pretty much killed any chance of that. He isn't MA Fleury, and Seattle isn't going to take a mediocre 32 year goalie making almost $6M.

 

[M2Beezy]

Heres to bare D cups...

I think he ment our D sucks

 

[MS]

There is no way in hell Seattle is taking Holtby *or* Myers. There will be 10 better goalies than Holtby available on better contracts, and Myers is a bottom-10 contract in the league.

The Canucks will lose one of Motte, MacEwen, or Lind, I'm pretty convinced.

Yup. Or Juolevi. Or maybe Virtanen if he's still here, which is probably unlikely at this point.

I think we protect Motte, though.

There is absolutely zero chance they take Holtby given his current play. None. A guy like Jake Allen fits the same demographic, is playing lights-out over the past couple years, and has a cap hit that's $2 million less.

It has nothing to do with valuing MacEwen. It’s about steering well clear of an albatross contract.

Although Drance recently confirmed suspicions @MS had that this management thinks they needed to protect Myers anyway.

If Benning is still here you can carve it in stone that they protect Myers. A new GM, who knows.

 

[xtra]

This whole demko/markstrom debate is absolutely stupid cause you can move the goal posts as you wish to defend benning.
Here is what the thought process should be:
1: is this team ready to contend for deep into the playoffs or do we need to rebuild and wait 2-3 years?

If you think they are ready to go deep then you make the moves to keep markstrom. If you think we need to rebuild you keep demko and benning made the wrong moves.

Now if you advocate for keeping demko cause we need to rebuild ask yourself why the heck you think benning should be here for a second rebuild after screwing up so much in his first 7 years.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Definitely Motte.

Player that has hustle and drive, can play PK and chew defensive minutes, and has a scoring touch. These are the prototypical 4th liners that you dream to have when they are in their prime.

These are also the type of players that somehow get a moronic GM to offer a term contract above 2.5 mil as they are exiting their prime.

 

[F A N]

It has nothing to do with valuing MacEwen. It’s about steering well clear of an albatross contract.

Although Drance recently confirmed suspicions @MS had that this management thinks they needed to protect Myers anyway.

Protect Myers from Seattle? God, Benning better not waste a protection spot on Myers.

It's almost a certainty. But we don't really have many players that are worth protecting..

It's laughably sad that they'd consider protecting Myers.

I'm no expert myself, but I think you guys may want to read up on the expansion draft rules. You can either protect 7 forwards + 3 D + 1 goalie or 8 skaters + 1 goalie. Clearly the 7 forwards + 3 D option is the better value and there are very few circumstances where you want to go with protecting 8 skaters.

As of right now, the Canucks don't have a Dman to expose for the expansion draft. So they have to expose either Schmidt or Myers (absent a trade or re-signing). Between the two, I think exposing Myers should be a no brainer. But the reality may be a bit different.

Those who are angry at the idea that management would even consider protecting Myers should look at Green's usage of Myers. You know who leads all Canucks Dmen in even strength ice time and total ice time per game? Yep. It's Tyler Myers.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

So, in summary, the only way Seattle expansion can be mismanaged is if Bengie remains the incumbent GM.

 

[Fatass]

I'm no expert myself, but I think you guys may want to read up on the expansion draft rules. You can either protect 7 forwards + 3 D + 1 goalie or 8 skaters + 1 goalie. Clearly the 7 forwards + 3 D option is the better value and there are very few circumstances where you want to go with protecting 8 skaters.

As of right now, the Canucks don't have a Dman to expose for the expansion draft. So they have to expose either Schmidt or Myers (absent a trade or re-signing). Between the two, I think exposing Myers should be a no brainer. But the reality may be a bit different.

Those who are angry at the idea that management would even consider protecting Myers should look at Green's usage of Myers. You know who leads all Canucks Dmen in even strength ice time and total ice time per game? Yep. It's Tyler Myers.

Expose Myers
Protect Schmidt, OJ, and ?
Which forwards do we protect?
Miller, Bo, Boeser, Petey (Lind?) ??
Protect Demko

 

[MS]

I'm no expert myself, but I think you guys may want to read up on the expansion draft rules. You can either protect 7 forwards + 3 D + 1 goalie or 8 skaters + 1 goalie. Clearly the 7 forwards + 3 D option is the better value and there are very few circumstances where you want to go with protecting 8 skaters.

As of right now, the Canucks don't have a Dman to expose for the expansion draft. So they have to expose either Schmidt or Myers (absent a trade or re-signing). Between the two, I think exposing Myers should be a no brainer. But the reality may be a bit different.

Juolevi needs to play only 16 of the last 37 games to qualify as our veteran exposed defender.

Those who are angry at the idea that management would even consider protecting Myers should look at Green's usage of Myers. You know who leads all Canucks Dmen in even strength ice time and total ice time per game? Yep. It's Tyler Myers.

I've defended Myers recently but being 'useful this season' and 'having a horrible contract we'd like to get rid of long term' are definitely not mutually exclusive.

 

[SamInVan]

Why would Markstrom do that? He was reaching UFA at the peak of his value, he was the best goalie available. He was looking for a long term contract, the contract that should set him up for life.

I never said it was a solid plan just that with cap room you can at least try and spin something to regain assets, Benning did nothing.

 

[Hit the post]

I never said it was a solid plan just that with cap room you can at least try and spin something to regain assets, Benning did nothing.

The less Benning does outside of drafting, the more I like!

 

[Fatass]

Juolevi needs to play only 16 of the last 37 games to qualify as our veteran exposed defender.



I've defended Myers recently but being 'useful this season' and 'having a horrible contract we'd like to get rid of long term' are definitely not mutually exclusive.

Doesn’t Chatfield need to play a similar number to be considered the “veteran exposed”?

 

[timw33]

So turns out we should have figured out a way to get MAF retained from Vegas when he was being offered up to the league instead of signing Holtby.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

So turns out we should have figured out a way to get MAF retained from Vegas when he was being offered up to the league instead of signing Holtby.

Sure but this would assume the knowledge of foresight in the people paid million of dollars per year to know these things.

In reality, they have yet to demonstrate they even possess the knowledge of hindsight.

 

[RandV]

I'm no expert myself, but I think you guys may want to read up on the expansion draft rules. You can either protect 7 forwards + 3 D + 1 goalie or 8 skaters + 1 goalie. Clearly the 7 forwards + 3 D option is the better value and there are very few circumstances where you want to go with protecting 8 skaters.

As of right now, the Canucks don't have a Dman to expose for the expansion draft. So they have to expose either Schmidt or Myers (absent a trade or re-signing). Between the two, I think exposing Myers should be a no brainer. But the reality may be a bit different.

Those who are angry at the idea that management would even consider protecting Myers should look at Green's usage of Myers. You know who leads all Canucks Dmen in even strength ice time and total ice time per game? Yep. It's Tyler Myers.

This is true but there's a number of ways around it that even a Benning team shouldn't need to expose someone they don't want to just to meet requirements. Having players like Chatfield or Juolevi meet requirements is one of them.

Although... even though they're going to be UFA's doesn't Benn and Hamonic still count as players exposed? I was going to say you could just throw a 1 year contract extension at one of them and their covered, but I'm pretty sure even on expiring contracts they count as exposed here.

 

[Fatass]

This is true but there's a number of ways around it that even a Benning team shouldn't need to expose someone they don't want to just to meet requirements. Having players like Chatfield or Juolevi meet requirements is one of them.

Although... even though they're going to be UFA's doesn't Benn and Hamonic still count as players exposed? I was going to say you could just throw a 1 year contract extension at one of them and their covered, but I'm pretty sure even on expiring contracts they count as exposed here.

Just play Chatfield instead of Benn. Two problems solved.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

What will probably happen though, is that Benning and Weisbrod will be attending the Dale Tallon School of League Expansion Drafts and will, together with their pal Murray in Anaheim, serve up valuable young assets to avoid losing devaluing veteran assets.

Benning and Weisbrod also have related experience already with the Madden trade, so they should be good to go.

 

[MS]

Doesn’t Chatfield need to play a similar number to be considered the “veteran exposed”?

Yes, but both are eligible either way so it doesn't really matter which guy is the one that gets to 27 games, and Juolevi seems to be the more likely at this point.

 

[tantalum]

Just play Chatfield instead of Benn. Two problems solved.

Hell you could even just dress 7 d-men and run with 3 lines and 2 principle penalty killers. Then Chatfield doesn’t even need to see the ice.