They will and always will but you continue to miss the point.
- Marwood

I don't miss the point at all. You guys are the one's complaining and it all comes back to we can't sign Markstrom whom both you and Lefty have said numerous times this year Trade HIm . The other player will will miss out on signing to a long term high priced contract is Tanev who plays 50 games a year . Sorry if I don't care if they go.

This is my favourite excuse. "Well Benning has herpes so I might as well have it too".
- 1970vintage

Sven was a good trade and had value at first. Extending his was stupid though which I pointed out over and over before the signing , just like I am doing with Tanev and Jake.

I like both players but time to get some value for Jake and Tanev doesn't play enough games a year to get a big contract with term
- VANTEL

Well, I'll disagree with the first point, I don't believe that given where the team was, that it was a good trade. In case anyone forgets, Baertschi was basically Goldobin his first two years in Vancouver (up and down between Utica/Vancouver/Press Box). But yes, the second point is exactly what I'm saying, there were plenty of people, you and I for example, who see things very differently but both noted that this was a stupid contract to sign and we were both right.

Now, I don't think Tryamkin is an upgrade over Tanev, but it's something that might have to happen because they won't have enough cap space to upgrade Tanev, and sign Markstrom (or upgrade that position) and sign Toffoli (or upgrade that position). Thankfully Sutter, Pearson and Sven come off the books the year after, when they have to sign Hughes and Peterson.

Agree...we've carried BC and Quebec long enough.
- LordHumungous

*waves good-bye*

*waves good-bye*
- Marwood

I think the problem is that people in alberta put bitumen in their bong instead of hash, messes up your brain cells big time

The man has no foresight, he's continually grasping at straws trying to be competitive. When he finally gets competitive he's backed himself into a corner with his poor spending.

But hey...his drafting has been excellent
- LeftCoaster

Not defending the man here, but we all know there was a mandate to try and be competitive while building a new core. I honestly don't think any GM could have truly done a better job, and if they did, it would have been better competitively and having lower picks.

This is the worst take ever. None of those contracts have provided good value, from day 1 that they were signed, and plenty of people said so on day one, so don't give us this "nobody could have imagined it". You sound just like a certain orange man south of the border.
- 1970vintage

Actually, a lot of people liked Sutter, just didn't like dropping 9 spots in the draft to get him(people are quick to point out the 2nd we gave up, but not the 3rd we got and the fact that there were only about 9 draft spots difference between the two)

Roussell people were loving the value before he went down.

Bearschi was what the market demanded for his production. Plain and simple.

Stop being bitter that I pointed out your stupid idea yesterday about how to determine playoffs. You act just like a supporter of a certain orange man south of the border.

Well, I'll disagree with the first point, I don't believe that given where the team was, that it was a good trade. In case anyone forgets, Baertschi was basically Goldobin his first two years in Vancouver (up and down between Utica/Vancouver/Press Box). But yes, the second point is exactly what I'm saying, there were plenty of people, you and I for example, who see things very differently but both noted that this was a stupid contract to sign and we were both right.

Now, I don't think Tryamkin is an upgrade over Tanev, but it's something that might have to happen because they won't have enough cap space to upgrade Tanev, and sign Markstrom (or upgrade that position) and sign Toffoli (or upgrade that position). Thankfully Sutter, Pearson and Sven come off the books the year after, when they have to sign Hughes and Peterson.
- 1970vintage

Tryamkin is definitely not an upgrade. He is short term cheap help on the right side.

You need to look at what Tanev brings. He brings 50 games a year of great shot blocking , great position , and good first pass.

It does not need to be a player for player swap . I would look at bringing in three Dmen this year . Two stay at home guys that are good in front of the net and another one that can put up points.

Actually, a lot of people liked Sutter, just didn't like dropping 9 spots in the draft to get him(people are quick to point out the 2nd we gave up, but not the 3rd we got and the fact that there were only about 9 draft spots difference between the two)

Roussell people were loving the value before he went down.

Bearschi was what the market demanded for his production. Plain and simple.

Stop being bitter that I pointed out your stupid idea yesterday about how to determine playoffs. You act just like a supporter of a certain orange man south of the border.
- Retinalz

lol "a lot of people liked it, so I like it too". Stupid. The "market" demand for Beartschi or Beagle or Sutter doesn't mean they were good deals, or even good ideas. They were bad ideas, but Benning was determined.

Sven was a good trade and had value at first. Extending his was stupid though which I pointed out over and over before the signing , just like I am doing with Tanev and Jake.

I like both players but time to get some value for Jake and Tanev doesn't play enough games a year to get a big contract with term
- VANTEL

We also didn't really have options beyond Sven when we signed him to that contract. We are lucky in a sense that many of our prospects have developed so quickly.

Tryamkin is definitely not an upgrade. He is short term cheap help on the right side.

You need to look at what Tanev brings. He brings 50 games a year of great shot blocking , great position , and good first pass.

It does not need to be a player for player swap . I would look at bringing in three Dmen this year . Two stay at home guys that are good in front of the net and another one that can put up points.
- VANTEL

Which wouldn't be necessary if the cap was managed properly.

Tryamkin is definitely not an upgrade. He is short term cheap help on the right side.

You need to look at what Tanev brings. He brings 50 games a year of great shot blocking , great position , and good first pass.

It does not need to be a player for player swap . I would look at bringing in three Dmen this year . Two stay at home guys that are good in front of the net and another one that can put up points.
- VANTEL

I'm just saying the goal should be to get better, yes?

Tanev out and Tryamkin in is not better. But, if you upgrade another D enough to offset, maybe you net out in a better spot. I just don't think this management group has the smarts to pull that off.

I think realistically, even with another year under the belt for guys like Pettersson and Hughes, the team takes a step backward next year, and then once they sweep away a few more bad contracts they will hopefully be in a better spot to improve the roster.

Which wouldn't be necessary if the cap was managed properly.
- Marwood

I never said it wasn't a good value contract.

Timing is everything . Time to get rid of these mediocre aging guys and bring in younger cheaper guys.

I'm just saying the goal should be to get better, yes?

Tanev out and Tryamkin in is not better. But, if you upgrade another D enough to offset, maybe you net out in a better spot. I just don't think this management group has the smarts to pull that off.

I think realistically, even with another year under the belt for guys like Pettersson and Hughes, the team takes a step backward next year, and then once they sweep away a few more bad contracts they will hopefully be in a better spot to improve the roster.
- 1970vintage

That will only happen with new management. Benning with plenty of cap space is a scary notion.

lol "a lot of people liked it, so I like it too". Stupid. The "market" demand for Beartschi or Beagle or Sutter doesn't mean they were good deals, or even good ideas. They were bad ideas, but Benning was determined.
- 1970vintage

I never said I liked Beagle. I was talking about Roussell, learn to pay attention to what you are reading.
Sutter was a guy I liked before we traded for him. 4.3m for a center who is good on the dot, puts up roughly 20g and can PK is not a bad contract. His injuries are what make the contract truly bad. After coming off of 81/80 games the season before, who would have guessed he got injured this often and badly?
Saying Bearschi got what the market demanded, and was considered good value for his production(over .5 ppg), is not the same as saying I liked the deal. I was simply being realistic.

Not defending the man here, but we all know there was a mandate to try and be competitive while building a new core. I honestly don't think any GM could have truly done a better job, and if they did, it would have been better competitively and having lower picks.
- Retinalz

either benning kept his mouth shut as to why that was the wrong course of action or he agreed with it.

both were wrong.

and couldn't the aquilini argument be used to justify the win now at all costs for a lot of mg's moves? lemme try: mg had a directive to win the cup at any cost so he used NTCs/NMCs as a way to keep the cap down in the short term but with long term negative ramifications. his trades were only concerned about the short term at the cost of long term planning because it was all about the cup. mg was okay with this because the owner directed him to.

you can justify or make an excuse for anything if you really try.

I'm just saying the goal should be to get better, yes?

Tanev out and Tryamkin in is not better. But, if you upgrade another D enough to offset, maybe you net out in a better spot. I just don't think this management group has the smarts to pull that off.

I think realistically, even with another year under the belt for guys like Pettersson and Hughes, the team takes a step backward next year, and then once they sweep away a few more bad contracts they will hopefully be in a better spot to improve the roster.
- 1970vintage

Tramkin is part of the package of change . He is not per say Tanev's replacement seeing I have him playing in Stechers spot . I see Tanev's spot being with a new Dman from a trade for Jake and other pieces. In Jim we trust.

I never said it wasn't a good value contract.

Timing is everything . Time to get rid of these mediocre aging guys and bring in younger cheaper guys.
- VANTEL

that's what should have been written on the wall 6 years ago.

ntc/nmc's and aquillini are just excuses.

I never said I liked Beagle. I was talking about Roussell, learn to pay attention to what you are reading.
Sutter was a guy I liked before we traded for him. 4.3m for a center who is good on the dot, puts up roughly 20g and can PK is not a bad contract. His injuries are what make the contract truly bad. After coming off of 81/80 games the season before, who would have guessed he got injured this often and badly?
Saying Bearschi got what the market demanded, and was considered good value for his production(over .5 ppg), is not the same as saying I liked the deal. I was simply being realistic.
- Retinalz

you never said you didn't like Beagle... I read good, I learned it from a book.

Sutter was a terrible trade at the time, it was a terrible signing at the time, and now it's a terrible contract now and in the future. Baertschi was a terrible signing. The writing was already on the wall that he didn't fit, and was oft injured.

I'm just saying the goal should be to get better, yes?

Tanev out and Tryamkin in is not better. But, if you upgrade another D enough to offset, maybe you net out in a better spot. I just don't think this management group has the smarts to pull that off.

I think realistically, even with another year under the belt for guys like Pettersson and Hughes, the team takes a step backward next year, and then once they sweep away a few more bad contracts they will hopefully be in a better spot to improve the roster.
- 1970vintage

If the cap went up, we could realistically keep Tanev, Toffoli, Markstrom. With it staying the same we definitely need to lose one of them. I think the question is what makes more sense. Toffoli/Tryamkin in, or Tanev in. What makes us better? Dump Markstrom and go with Demko to keep Tanev? I actually don't mind this option if we end up giving away this years 1st and have next years. If we take a dip we get a good first and Demko gets the experience to become a starter.

A lot of teams will take a step back next year if the cap remains the same/goes down, I think that keeps us right where we are now. In the hunt.

that's what should have been written on the wall 6 years ago.

ntc/nmc's and aquillini are just excuses.
- RealityChecker

When your top players say no thank you they don't want to be traded it sort of does tie your hands. Aaron Volpatti's are easy to trade for seventh rounders but it reaaly doesn't put you further ahead.

Who's the next GM to get fired?

I'm thinking Dale Talon is going to get canned. Man did he ever (frank) that team up. Bobrovsky at $10m, Matheson at almost $5m, Stralman and Yandle...

When your top players say no thank you they don't want to be traded it sort of does tie your hands. Aaron Volpatti's are easy to trade for seventh rounders but it reaaly doesn't put you further ahead.
- VANTEL

Volpatti was lost to waivers, they didn't even get a 7th rounder for him


Have a look at Detroit's roster for next year. They don't have any NHL quality D men or goalies. Biega is in their top 2

If the cap went up, we could realistically keep Tanev, Toffoli, Markstrom. With it staying the same we definitely need to lose one of them. I think the question is what makes more sense. Toffoli/Tryamkin in, or Tanev in. What makes us better? Dump Markstrom and go with Demko to keep Tanev? I actually don't mind this option if we end up giving away this years 1st and have next years. If we take a dip we get a good first and Demko gets the experience to become a starter.

A lot of teams will take a step back next year if the cap remains the same/goes down, I think that keeps us right where we are now. In the hunt.
- Retinalz

Benning has to think further ahead than just next year. Let's say the cap stays the same. They can still sign Tanev, Markstrom and Toffoli, and fill in the last couple gaps with ELC players. No problem. But next year, you have to sign Hughes and Pettersson, and the space being made by Sutter, Baertschi and Pearson's contracts won't be enough.

Volpatti was lost to waivers, they didn't even get a 7th rounder for him


Have a look at Detroit's roster for next year. They don't have any NHL quality D men or goalies. Biega is in their top 2
- 1970vintage

I was using that name as an example I didn't care to google for something so irrelevant in Canucks history

Lesson learnt