Richardstroker69 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:45 am
How many take on bad contracts deals happen every year? You numbnuts talk like this is a regular occurrence, it’s not (maybe one or two per year). Than when the rumours of us doing just that (Lucic, zaitsev) people have hissy fits.
Cap space does not matter near as much during a rebuild and you still have to ice a team that’s competitive otherwise you get the Buffalo edmonton loser mentality. Guys like beagle, Sutter, don’t move the needle much but they at least compete hard and help the young guys get acclimatized to the nhl.
That statement contradicts itself.
I would agree with the first part, that cap space doesn't matter during a rebuild, but only insofar as it applies to the first phase of a rebuild. The first phase is where you shed bloat and aging assets that will not be part of the new roster when it's time to win, but will be of benefit to a team that is in win now mode. So you can take on bad contracts and say to hell with cap space because you are charging more to take on the deadweight so you can acquire the chips you need for the future.
There is also a time to be dealing out players who other teams will take a chance on in terms of health or need of a change of scenery.
The Canucks are not in phase one anymore, and they should be looking to emerge from middle phase soon. The rebuild has gone long enough now that cap space is starting to matter. Horvat is now 24, if we continue along the trajectory we are on he will be closing in on 30 before we are even close to being a team that people might peg as having a chance to contend for even the conference finals. We've had some vets who can teach work ethic, now it's time for a few of the guys, like Bo, to take on that role and start surrounding the young, emerging, core with players who help them win, while providing cap space that will permit contract extensions as well as strong new additions.
Tanev fits the mold of quality vet who could help a "win now" team and also return a worthwhile future asset for the Canucks.
Baertschi is a guy who another GM choose to ignore his previous health issues and risk a pick and/or prospect on in order to fill a 2nd/3rd line role where the hope is that some secondary scoring might come from further down the lineup than otherwise expected.
Eriksson, Sutter, and Spooner, are the players currently on the roster who are taking up far more cap value than what they actually bring to the team.
When a team like Vancouver misses out on the playoffs by as much as they did this past season, and the fall from challenging can be attributed to an incredible rash of injuries to key players so late in the season, it means the time has come to add talent that helps you win. If you are unable to do that because of current underachieving players have contracts sucking up cap space and are difficult to move, then you have reached the point where cap space matters to the rebuild.
We are there this summer.
I'm not saying that Benning won't be able to move some of these guys, but it might cost more to do it than some of us are comfortable with.
I'm also not faulting Benning for signing Eriksson for $6M. He was a 30 goal scorer and should not have been such a disappointment here. Shit happens.
I do think signing Gagner was an unnecessary risk simply because he went more than 2 years on a player that did not warrant that kind of commitment for what he would bring to the table. The resulting trade for Spooner was a lateral move that was risk free simply because both guys were playing like crap.
Sutter was a mediocre (at best) trade, and a poor extension signing. Considering that it was 3 years ago Sutter was not worth 5 years at that price tag. Right now a 3rd line, defensive, face-off winning, pivot who had only scored 40 points once, and with 2 exceptions was a 15 goal, 30 point, scorer,
might be worth $4M. That player was not worth that kind of cash and commitment 3 years ago.
This draft, and off-season, Benning needs to do well.