Player Discussion Tyler Toffoli

[David71]

I see Toffoli's talent can overcome a lot of his deficiencies so I dont see why we would sign this player to more than 3 years. I get the feeling this fan base would turn on Toffoli quite quickly if he signs here.

like we always do for every former players that has played in a vancouver uniform.

 

[iceburg]

5x5 for Markstrom is workable. But I sure hope they don't add a NMC/NTC. Maybe a 10 team NTC list would work. They just can't be in a position to have to trade Demko. Other teams will see that and the value goes down. Ideally they work as a tandem for 1 or 2 more years and then a decision is made resulting in return value for one of them. But that seems like a little pie in the sky given Markstrom's leverage as a pending UFA and the expansion draft coming up.

 

[VancouverJagger]

Irfaan dropping some bombs today
4.5 for Toffoli and 5m for Marky would be fantastic...
However, I dont want Marky to get expansion draft protection

If any of this is correct it is really great news and may in fact be a sign of the times (with FA's not getting what they would normally in non-covid times).

Would be fine with each of those however for Marky I can't see how we would want/agree to give him expansion draft protection. I don't see how we can keep him and Demko over the course of the contract then. Really only way I am re-signing him is if he agrees to not have expansion draft protection. Which I am kinda dubious about...........

 

[F A N]

Ferland was never a legit viable top 6 option. Was always the 3rd banana and got carried to 40pt season on stacked lines.

You're conflating things here. We didn't sign Ferland to anchor a top 6 line. He was signed to be a complimentary piece (hopefully) alongside either Petey or Horvat. IIRC, Harman Dayal did an article on the Ferland signing and one of things that he pointed out was Ferland's ability to receive passes and shoot from the slot and generate second scoring opportunities. He figured to be a good fit for Travis Green hockey. Of course he couldn't stay healthy and now his NHL career might be over so it's a moot point now.

 

[Hodgy]

You're conflating things here. We didn't sign Ferland to anchor a top 6 line. He was signed to be a complimentary piece (hopefully) alongside either Petey or Horvat. IIRC, Harman Dayal did an article on the Ferland signing and one of things that he pointed out was Ferland's ability to receive passes and shoot from the slot and generate second scoring opportunities. He figured to be a good fit for Travis Green hockey. Of course he couldn't stay healthy and now his NHL career might be over so it's a moot point now.

To be fair, Ferland had concussion issues the previous year and without a doubt the Canucks knew far more about this than the general public. The fact that Ferland didn’t sign until he did likely shows that many (most?) other teams were worried about his health vis a vis his contract demands.

But even ignoring health concerns, and acknowledging that the pandemic and ensuing flat cap was not foreseeable, giving Ferland term was moronic given the obvious cap crunch we were going to be in this summer. Like, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this was just a horrible decision which favoured short term gain over long term salary cap planning. Ironically of course, and not unlike lots of other similar decisions of this nature, the decision actually didn’t provide any short term gain.

 

[F A N]

To be fair, Ferland had concussion issues the previous year and without a doubt the Canucks knew far more about this than the general public. The fact that Ferland didn’t sign until he did likely shows that many (most?) other teams were worried about his health vis a vis his contract demands.

But even ignoring health concerns, and acknowledging that the pandemic and ensuing flat cap was not foreseeable, giving Ferland term was moronic given the obvious cap crunch we were going to be in this summer. Like, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this was just a horrible decision which favoured short term gain over long term salary cap planning. Ironically of course, and not unlike lots of other similar decisions of this nature, the decision actually didn’t provide any short term gain.

Can you clarify? What is the relation between "the obvious cap crunch" and the term Ferland was signed for? I assume that had the Canucks signed Ferland to a 2 year contract you would not say the Canucks sign him for term or when you say term you are talking about anything more than one year?

 

[Hodgy]

Can you clarify? What is the relation between "the obvious cap crunch" and the term Ferland was signed for? I assume that had the Canucks signed Ferland to a 2 year contract you would not say the Canucks sign him for term or when you say term you are talking about anything more than one year?

Yes, a one year deal would have been fine (but with some risk because of his health concerns). Two years or more was a poor decision at the time given Tanev, Markstrom, Stetcher, Virtanen, Hughes and Pettersson’s contracts. Obviously adding Toffoli at the deadline worsened the problem.

 

[LuLover96]

To be fair, Ferland had concussion issues the previous year and without a doubt the Canucks knew far more about this than the general public. The fact that Ferland didn’t sign until he did likely shows that many (most?) other teams were worried about his health vis a vis his contract demands.

But even ignoring health concerns, and acknowledging that the pandemic and ensuing flat cap was not foreseeable, giving Ferland term was moronic given the obvious cap crunch we were going to be in this summer. Like, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this was just a horrible decision which favoured short term gain over long term salary cap planning. Ironically of course, and not unlike lots of other similar decisions of this nature, the decision actually didn’t provide any short term gain.

Yeah because he *totally* would’ve signed for 1 or 2 years. Of course the Canucks knew about his concussions, but you can’t honestly say its a bad deal because of the “cap crunch.” We lost $6 Million in expected cap space because of the Luongo recapture and the flat cap. Who expected that? Nobody.

Ferland was the type of player everyone here wanted. 200ft player, very physical and a known playoff performer. Considering the risk at the time was a LTIRetirement contract at worst and a staple in the top 6 at best, it was not a bad move for a team in our position. Term was how we kept the cap down, and it’s very telling that your narrative of this “bad signing” is based off of something you’d need a crystal ball for.

 

[iceburg]

Yes, a one year deal would have been fine (but with some risk because of his health concerns). Two years or more was a poor decision at the time given Tanev, Markstrom, Stetcher, Virtanen, Hughes and Pettersson’s contracts. Obviously adding Toffoli at the deadline worsened the problem.

This. Exactly. The caveat being that he wouldn't have signed for 1 year, certainly not at that price.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Yeah because he *totally* would’ve signed for 1 or 2 years. Of course the Canucks knew about his concussions, but you can’t honestly say its a bad deal because of the “cap crunch.” We lost $6 Million in expected cap space because of the Luongo recapture and the flat cap. Who expected that? Nobody.

Ferland was the type of player everyone here wanted. 200ft player, very physical and a known playoff performer. Considering the risk at the time was a LTIRetirement contract at worst and a staple in the top 6 at best, it was not a bad move for a team in our position. Term was how we kept the cap down, and it’s very telling that your narrative of this “bad signing” is based off of something you’d need a crystal ball for.

Actually, it was a terrible move for a team in this specific position. They had already traded for Miller, had Pearson in-house, and had already wasted cap on Baertchi, Eriksson, Sutter, Beagle, Roussel and more.

That landscape should have pushed Benning to be conservative, but he was desperate. Now he's strapped the team with another millstone contract.

It was completely foreseeable that there was a good chance Ferland would have continued concussion issues. Benning screwed up with his diligence, and now the team pays for it... again.

This. Exactly. The caveat being that he wouldn't have signed for 1 year, certainly not at that price.

With the second caveat being that GMs are not forced to sign free agents.

 

[Hodgy]

Yeah because he *totally* would’ve signed for 1 or 2 years. Of course the Canucks knew about his concussions, but you can’t honestly say its a bad deal because of the “cap crunch.” We lost $6 Million in expected cap space because of the Luongo recapture and the flat cap. Who expected that? Nobody.

Ferland was the type of player everyone here wanted. 200ft player, very physical and a known playoff performer. Considering the risk at the time was a LTIRetirement contract at worst and a staple in the top 6 at best, it was not a bad move for a team in our position. Term was how we kept the cap down, and it’s very telling that your narrative of this “bad signing” is based off of something you’d need a crystal ball for.

I stopped reading at the bolded. News flash, the Canucks knew about the Luongo recapture at the time of signing Ferland so how was that unexpected , but obviously this is a deflection technique.

Also, hilarious that there is a narrative that the flat cap and Luongo recapture has caused the cap crunch. Like, let’s just ignore Eriksson, Sutter, Beagle, Roussel, Ferland and Baertschi. Does any other GM give out terrible contracts at the rate Elmer does? It’s shocking.

 

[BB06]

So how does everyone feel about the 4.8x5 or 5x4 rumours?

 

[Hodgy]

This. Exactly. The caveat being that he wouldn't have signed for 1 year, certainly not at that price.

As Beach said, that’s fine, you don’t sign him then. It’s Likely why he hadn’t been signed yet by any other team.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Yeah because he *totally* would’ve signed for 1 or 2 years. Of course the Canucks knew about his concussions, but you can’t honestly say its a bad deal because of the “cap crunch.” We lost $6 Million in expected cap space because of the Luongo recapture and the flat cap. Who expected that? Nobody.

Ferland was the type of player everyone here wanted. 200ft player, very physical and a known playoff performer. Considering the risk at the time was a LTIRetirement contract at worst and a staple in the top 6 at best, it was not a bad move for a team in our position. Term was how we kept the cap down, and it’s very telling that your narrative of this “bad signing” is based off of something you’d need a crystal ball for.

If he wouldn't sign for short term, Benning can always say "thank you for your time" and move on. Despite his actions, Benning really isn't obligated to sign long term big cap hit deals to mediocre players every off season.
We all wanted the 2015 Ferland. We all knew in 2019 that Ferland isn't the same player as 4 years ago. It didn't take a crystal ball to know that the odds is against the deal working out in the team's favor, its very telling that you can't see that.

 

[F A N]

Yes, a one year deal would have been fine (but with some risk because of his health concerns). Two years or more was a poor decision at the time given Tanev, Markstrom, Stetcher, Virtanen, Hughes and Pettersson’s contracts. Obviously adding Toffoli at the deadline worsened the problem.

As Beach said, that’s fine, you don’t sign him then. It’s Likely why he hadn’t been signed yet by any other team.

That makes sense. And you're entitled to your opinion. I would say that Ferland reportedly had 3 year deals on the table. The Canucks going to 4 sealed the deal. So it ISN'T likely that Ferland didn't sign because he only had 1 year deals on the table.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

So how does everyone feel about the 4.8x5 or 5x4 rumours?

I’d rather go shorter term and higher cap hit. I think he’s a good player who adds value to the team - and it sounds like Pettersson has been extolling his virtues to management. So for frick’s sake, keep Petey happy.

 

[Hansen]

Eh its tough to tell with the source being 650, could just be the propaganda team putting out low numbers as a negotiating tactic

 

[BB06]

I’d rather go shorter term and higher cap hit. I think he’s a good player who adds value to the team - and it sounds like Pettersson has been extolling his virtues to management. So for frick’s sake, keep Petey happy.

Ideally I'd want a 5.25x3. Sell Him on boosting his stats by playing with Petey and the offensive minded Canucks. He'll be 30 at the end of that contract and could probably still get big money after the Covid effects wear off.

 

[Diamonddog01]

So how does everyone feel about the 4.8x5 or 5x4 rumours?

I saw 4 x 5 or 5 x 4, I'd be happy with both tbh. Was expecting 5x5, so it would be a discount in regards to AAV or term from my original expectation. If I had to choose between the two would go with the 5M x 4 year deal as we've been killed by too much term on several (albeit much worse) players.

 

[Baby Pettersson]

I’d rather go shorter term and higher cap hit. I think he’s a good player who adds value to the team - and it sounds like Pettersson has been extolling his virtues to management. So for frick’s sake, keep Petey happy.

Interesting. I feel the opposite. Longer term. Smaller cap hit.

6 years would bring him to 34. I'd expect him to produce up until then.

6 years X 4M would be my offer.

 

[F A N]

Interesting. I feel the opposite. Longer term. Smaller cap hit.

6 years would bring him to 34. I'd expect him to produce up until then.

6 years X 4M would be my offer.

That's a pretty big gamble. But hey, at 34 he should be able to continue doing the "small things."

 

[Bleach Clean]

I’d rather go shorter term and higher cap hit. I think he’s a good player who adds value to the team - and it sounds like Pettersson has been extolling his virtues to management. So for frick’s sake, keep Petey happy.

A shorter term takes him to 5.25m/5.5m per, which then creates less room in year 2 for Pettersson and Hughes. That’s the ultimate concern.

I’d like 3 years too, but given the current commitments on the team, I give him the extra year for a lower AAV. This changes if they move money somehow.

 

[bandwagonesque]

So how does everyone feel about the 4.8x5 or 5x4 rumours?

I'm not seeing any actual rumours, just statements that that a certain numbers could get a deal done or may be as high as the team is willing to go. When these things can be attributed to a source (even one or multiple anonymous sources or just "people close to the team") they invariably are. These seem to be suppositions on the part of various journalists.

 

[VanJack]

We're so used to Vancouver Canuck UFA's beating a hasty retreat out of town every July 1st, it's a bit jarring when a guy like Tofoli is apparently desperate to return. But I guess you can't question him for it. Perception around the league is that the Canucks are good young team on the rise, and maybe even positioned to challenge for a Cup in a few years.

Of course this is also shaping up as a very lean year for UFA's.....Elliot Friedmann now reporting that not only UFA's, but a bunch of RFA's won't end up being qualified by their teams who are in a cash and cap crunch. There could be some intriguing names out there in the prime of their careers. Too bad the Canucks didn't have a lot more cap space to take advantage of it. But their chances of trading a 'bad contract' are virtually nil.

 

[bandwagonesque]

If Toffoli is willing to sign for 4 years at a salary of 5M of just under it, you definitely sign him.