2020 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread II

[Peter10]

That’s completely irrelevant to what Bleach said. He said “teams don’t trade Virtanen like assets alone for cap space”.

Tampa did exactly that.

Tampa isnt a team that is on the rise trying to take the next step or adding the missing piece like the Blackhawks were back then. And again Tampa did not attach Miller to a terrible contract in order to get rid of it which is the scenario that Bleach is advocating against. If Eriksson was with Tampa and they would have dealt him to us and gave us Miller for taking on the Eriksson cap hit it would have been comparable.

 

[Hoghandler]

And again Tampa did not attach Miller to a terrible contract in order to get rid of it which is the scenario that Bleach is advocating against.

That is not what Bleach stated. Go read his post and my response. He made absolutely no mention of attaching a secondary contract.

If he does make that case, I will respond.

 

[MS]

That’s completely irrelevant to what Bleach said. He said “teams don’t trade Virtanen like assets alone for cap space”.

Tampa did exactly that.

I think anyone with half a brain can figure out that if you have a 120-point team and are over the cap with a mountain of excellent players and no bad contracts, that the only option available would be to trade someone for a draft pick.

That is not the scenario we are talking about here.

The issues here are :

1) if you're in a position where you've spent 6 years building a team, haven't even made the playoffs yet, and are talking about trading young affordable high-value assets to bail yourself out of cap hell, the GM who put the team in that situation should be fired out of a cannon.

2) given that the team is in that situation, we shouldn't be making it worse by dealing affordable productive players like Virtanen for picks or do dump contracts. If you want to compete and not set the team backwards, you should be moving draft picks to dump contracts. And you shouldn't be giving older players with questionable resumes like a Tyler Toffoli retirement contracts the team can't afford.

 

[Bleach Clean]

What would your thoughts be if a new GM came in and said:

"I think this team is ready to win now and I want to sign our key players like Markstrom, Tanev, Stecher, and Toffoli to achieve that goal. I think some mistakes were made in the past and we may need to give up some positive assets to fix those mistakes and give us cap flexibility to sign our key guys".

I think most fans would be excited to hear that assuming it meant Virtanen & Demko, or picks/prospects. And if you wouldn't be excited, that's fair but I think you would be in the minority. It would be a well-reasoned statement that gives a clear directive for the team.

Point being, I don't think the value with these "Virtanen + cap dump for a lesser return" is what people have an issue with. The problem is the lack of faith in the guy making those moves and also that it appears to let the GM off the hook for his bad moves. And I to totally get that, because he's an awful GM and it's hard to get away from looking at the whole picture.

This is GM independent. With all things being equal, cap space is not prioritized. Player assets are prioritized.

Cap dumps are not ideal actions. They are forced actions due to necessity. What you’re saying here is that a normally forced action, that is not ideal, is now the ideal action due to context. I disagree with that logic.

The context is not the overriding concern, unless you want it to be.

Dumping good players in order to sign better players is an action pursued by great teams. They do it to gain further efficiency on an otherwise highly efficient roster. It’s bold to consider it there, but the context here is so far removed from that that there is no parallel.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Nice try. First acknowledge your statement was wrong, that in fact teams do trade ‘players like Virtanen for cap space’.

That needs to be admitted before we proceed.

No where was it said that good players aren’t dumped due to the cap. Now please don’t duck my question a second time because you’re pinned.

Was Tampa in the Ideal position when forced to dump Miller, or not?

 

[Bleach Clean]

That is not what Bleach stated. Go read his post and my response. He made absolutely no mention of attaching a secondary contract.

If he does make that case, I will respond.

I’ve talked about scenarios prior to your Tampa example. Read better.

 

[MS]

I'll also add that it's fascinating that the Benning crowd can admit with hindsight that Benning's tendency to get tunnel vision on older UFAs with questionable resumes and massively overpay for them is a problem ... and then in the next breath be cheerleading for Benning to give a retirement contract to Tyler Toffoli, a slow skater who has averaged 44 points/82 games for the past 4 years.

Like, it's literally exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

[Hoghandler]

With all things being equal, roster flexibility is not greater in value than the asset Virtanen now represents. Make sense? If that were the case, teams would be dumping Virtanen-like assets alone in order to gain cap space. They don't do that because it's stupid to do so.

Here again is your quote.

Tampa explicitly valued roster flexibility over the asset J.T. Miller represents.

Which means the entire premise of your argument fails before it even begins.

Address this.

 

[Hoghandler]

I'll also add that it's fascinating that the Benning crowd can admit with hindsight that Benning's tendency to get tunnel vision on older UFAs with questionable resumes and massively overpay for them is a problem ... and then in the next breath be cheerleading for Benning to give a retirement contract to Tyler Toffoli, a slow skater who has averaged 44 points/82 games for the past 4 years.

Like, it's literally exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

Does this go for just Toffoli, or the 2 other, older pending UFA’s as well?

 

[MS]

Does this go for just Toffoli, or the 2 other, older pending UFA’s as well?

1) I've said many times that it would be better to be able to walk away from Tanev - much as he's one of my favourite players - but that in a situation where we have almost nobody on our blueline who can actually play defense and PK and our team is already a defensive mess, that we don't have much choice but to try re-signing him. Conversely, we can probably replace Toffoli's production for peanuts by shifting Gaudette into that spot.

3) I've said they should be shot if they go past 3 years on Tanev.

2) Markstrom was probably the best goalie in the NHL last year, our team MVP, and is a completely different level of player from Tyler Toffoli. If we had Patrick Kane on this team somehow, I'd be all for re-signing him, too.

 

[Hoghandler]

1) I've said many times that it would be better to be able to walk away from Tanev - much as he's one of my favourite players - but that in a situation where we have almost nobody on our blueline who can actually play defense and PK and our team is already a defensive mess, that we don't have much choice but to try re-signing him. Conversely, we can probably replace Toffoli's production for peanuts by shifting Gaudette into that spot.

3) I've said they should be shot if they go past 3 years on Tanev.

2) Markstrom was probably the best goalie in the NHL last year, our team MVP, and is a completely different level of player from Tyler Toffoli. If we had Patrick Kane on this team somehow, I'd be all for re-signing him, too.

So it is just Toffoli then? The youngest of the bunch, that happened to look tremendous on our 1st line, and even better on the 1st unit PP.

Curious why you’re then pissed they aren’t throwing $10mil a year for a retirement contract for Taylor Hall to come in and play in Pearson’s spot? Pretty steep price to pay for a marginal point improvement, wouldn’t you say? An extra $6mil or so for an extra, what 10 points on the 2nd line? Never mind having to commit to Hall until he’s in his mid to late 30’s...

 

[Bleach Clean]

Here again is your quote.

Tampa explicitly valued roster flexibility over the asset J.T. Miller represents.

Which means the entire premise of your argument fails before it even begins.

Address this.

Yes because they were forced to do so, as in not-ideal. Now after the third time, admit this or be rightly ridiculed for holding a position that illogical. There’s no shame in it. Just admit it and move on.

Unless you don’t intend to be taken seriously?

 

[MS]

So it is just Toffoli then? The youngest of the bunch, that happened to look tremendous on our 1st line, and even better on the 1st unit PP.

Curious why you’re then pissed they aren’t throwing $10mil a year for a retirement contract for Taylor Hall to come in and play in Pearson’s spot? Pretty steep price to pay for a marginal point improvement, wouldn’t you say? An extra $6mil or so for an extra, what 10 points on the 2nd line? Never mind having to commit to Hall until he’s in his mid to late 30’s...

Jacob Markstrom : probably the best goalie in the NHL last year.
Taylor Hall : elite skater who was the 2018 NHL MVP.

Tyler Toffoli : slow 2nd liner who has averaged 44 points/82 games over the past 4 years but got on a hot streak after arriving here.

Is it really that hard to figure out? And yes, if we didn't have $30 million in crap contracts and had the mountains of cap space that we should have, I'd be looking at adding a former MVP to our forward group. I don't know the numbers and I don't know if you could make it work, but it's sure as hell something you should be kicking the tires pretty hard on.

And again, it's about managing your risk. When you can replace the production and value of an older player internally, those are the guys you should be walking away from. In Toffoli's case, it's a very good bet that Gaudette could generate fine results in that roster spot for under $2 million. In Tanev and Markstrom's case ... there is no way to replace those assets internally and the team will take a major step backward if they go, so those are the sorts of situations where the risk associated with signing an older player becomes more justified.

 

[Hoghandler]

Yes because they were forced to do so, as in not-ideal. Now after the third time, admit this or be rightly ridiculed for holding a position that illogical. There’s no shame in it. Just admit it and move on.

Unless you don’t intend to be taken seriously?

So you agree the premise of your argument is built on faulty logic. Glad you stopped trying to get around that fact.

Was Tampa in an ideal situation when they dumped Miller? No.

 

[Hoghandler]

And again, it's about managing your risk. When you can replace the production and value of an older player internally, those are the guys you should be walking away from. In Toffoli's case, it's a very good bet that Gaudette could generate fine results in that roster spot for under $2 million. In Tanev and Markstrom's case ... there is no way to replace those assets internally and the team will take a major step backward if they go, so those are the sorts of situations where the risk associated with signing an older player becomes more justified.

If it’s about managing risk, can you see why I would think it’s smart to retain a player you know has chemistry with your 2 1st line cornerstone forwards, as well as a friendship and prior chemistry with the winger he could play with on the 2nd line. To lock into a player like Hall for twice the cap hit and twice the term, that you don’t know how will fit into your lineup, or locker room for that matter dos t seem like managing risk well. Especially when you consider the guys job he would be taking has been tremendously productive, and cheap to boot.

I think you’re taking a bigger gamble with Virtanen being a quality top 6 option than you are with re-signing a player like Toffoli.

This doesn’t even get into the handful of other RW options that could very well push Jake down the depth chart in the coming years.

 

[Peen]

I don't think anyone is doubting the fit of Toffoli into the top six. I think what people are arguing is the cost to sign him will be to trade a younger, arguably better winger who projects better and wants to be here over an older, slower player who's trending down.

The term and cost would have be 5 million and 4 years at the most which I'd bet won't get it done.

 

[Hoghandler]

I don't think anyone is doubting the fit of Toffoli into the top six. I think what people are arguing is the cost to sign him will be to trade a younger, arguably better winger who projects better and wants to be here over an older, slower player who's trending down.

The term and cost would have be 5 million and 4 years at the most which I'd bet won't get it done.

I agree on your contract parameters, but don’t view Virtanen as a better top 6 fit over Toffoli. Toffoli not only has the better skillset to match the Canucks top 6, he also is a much more sound defensive player.

A Toffoli re-signing would keep Jake stuck in the bottom 6 throughout his prime years. Could put that asset to better use in a trade.

 

[Peen]

I agree on your contract parameters, but don’t view Virtanen as a better top 6 fit over Toffoli. Toffoli not only has the better skillset to match the Canucks top 6, he also is a much more sound defensive player.

A Toffoli re-signing would keep Jake stuck in the bottom 6 throughout his prime years. Could put that asset to better use in a trade.

I was referring to Boeser.

Is the return we can get for Boeser a significant upgrade on Madden and a 2nd that's worth taking on the downward trend of a worse player just because he fit better in a small sample size?

 

[MS]

If it’s about managing risk, can you see why I would think it’s smart to retain a player you know has chemistry with your 2 1st line cornerstone forwards, as well as a friendship and prior chemistry with the winger he could play with on the 2nd line. To lock into a player like Hall for twice the cap hit and twice the term, that you don’t know how will fit into your lineup, or locker room for that matter dos t seem like managing risk well. Especially when you consider the guys job he would be taking has been tremendously productive, and cheap to boot.

Chemistry or a hot streak?

Nikolai Goldobin once had 11 points in 10 games next to Pettersson in November 2018 and people were talking about their 'chemistry'. Baertschi and Horvat had 'chemistry'. Brendan Leipsic and Jussi Jokinen lit it up here after being trade deadline acquisitions. Making major long-term decisions based on tiny sample sizes is stupid.

Pettersson and Miller are outstanding players. Generally when you put a good player with two excellent players they have 'chemistry' because good players almost always play well with other good players.

When you have a team that can't play defense, sacrificing multiple further quality defensive assets to retain a 45-point forward because 'chemistry' when you could replace that player for peanuts is ... not smart. And not good management.

Taylor Hall is an offensive force who can carry a line. If you put a player like that on your 2nd line you have one of the best 1-2 punches in the NHL. If you can find a way to bring in an elite player like that in a way that makes financial sense, you go for it.

It's mindboggling that someone who supported spending $10 million on Ferland and Myers could balk at spending $10 million for Taylor Hall, a recent NHL MVP.

I think you’re taking a bigger gamble with Virtanen being a quality top 6 option than you are with re-signing a player like Toffoli.

This doesn’t even get into the handful of other RW options that could very well push Jake down the depth chart in the coming years.

I'm not gambling on Virtanen being a dead-set top-6 option. I'm signing him to be a middle-6 forward and seeing where he ends up. I'd be banking on Gaudette as being a top-6 option and given that he scored at a higher rate last year than Toffoli has over last 4 and did so from garbage minutes at a position with more defensively responsibility ... I'd say it's a safe bet.

For one single season next year, at the same money, is Toffoli a better top-6 bet than Virtanen? Of course. But this is the sort of shortsighted thinking with no consideration of salary that has gotten us into trouble constantly. Is Toffoli at double the cost of Virtanen and double the term a better bet than Virtanen? No f***ing way.

 

[MS]

So you agree the premise of your argument is built on faulty logic. Glad you stopped trying to get around that fact.

Was Tampa in an ideal situation when they dumped Miller? No.

You continued attempts to link TB trading Miller when they were an elite team over the cap with no bad contracts to our current situation are disingenuous at best.

 

[Hoghandler]

Again, talking about risk mitigation, while throwing a max term, massive cap hit at Taylor Hall just doesn’t jibe. Hall has been out scored by Tanner Pearson over their last 100 games. Cost benefit analysis says no. If you sign Taylor Hall, it’s because you need a 1st line LW, not a 2nd line winger. Poor fit for the Canucks.

 

[Hoghandler]

You continued attempts to link TB trading Miller when they were an elite team over the cap with no bad contracts to our current situation are disingenuous at best.

There is no link whatsoever. I responded to a comment that teams don’t trade players like Virtanen for cap space.

 

[MS]

There is no link whatsoever. I responded to a comment that teams don’t trade players like Virtanen for cap space.

You're trying to derail the thread by arguing semantics when it should be very obvious that the poster meant 'teams in Vancouver's position', not some team in a completely different situation with a completely different set of options that has nothing to do with the specifics of what we're arguing now.

 

[MS]

Again, talking about risk mitigation, while throwing a max term, massive cap hit at Taylor Hall just doesn’t jibe. Hall has been out scored by Tanner Pearson over their last 100 games. Cost benefit analysis says no. If you sign Taylor Hall, it’s because you need a 1st line LW, not a 2nd line winger. Poor fit for the Canucks.

Taylor Hall has 93 points in his last 100 NHL games.
Tanner Pearson has 63 points in his last 100 NHL games.

 

[Hoghandler]

You're trying to derail the thread by arguing semantics when it should be very obvious that the poster meant 'teams in Vancouver's position', not some team in a completely different situation with a completely different set of options that has nothing to do with the specifics of what we're arguing now.

No, that’s not what he meant. If it was he would have made that clear. I gave him 3 opportunities to change his statement if that’s what he wanted.

He stands by the exact statement he made, don’t try and speak for other people. If he wants to change his statement, he can do so.