[Report] Ilya Samsonov, previously waived, recalled by TOR

[Jayinblack]

21 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

Yeah, I think that's completely the wrong way to look at things.  The primary job of any GM is to actually just get their team into the playoffs.  Under most circumstances, a GM will only get fired when their team fails in the regular season.  To that end, Dubas never failed to deliver.

 

 

You sure about that?  Didn't Dubas get fired for playoff failure ?

[Bob Long]

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

 

Problem was that to get the most out of OEL, we ironically needed players like Cole, Soucy (and now Zadorov) to play with him (same with Myers). But one of the few avenues to get the cap to add those guys... Was buying out OEL. That's on both management groups.

 

Benning for adding un-complementary guys he seemingly had no plan to add complementary players to, and poor cap management. Allvin for a massive, long buyout that will handicap the team for years (albeit likely a necessary evil to move the roster forward... but still poor cap management).

 

Ditching oel was the right choice.

 

Only question is was the bet on our prospects the right call.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Which is why at a minimum Willander and Lekker need to be here and contributing. It's an interesting bet Allvin made, could be career defining for him.

 

It's also likely banking on having other inefficient cap expiring the next couple years (Myers, Poolman) and the cap rising after being flat here.

 

Most teams have at least one inefficient contract/buyout/LTIR dead cap. OEL's buyout will be ours. It's not "ideal" by any means, but it's manageable, especially if you have a couple ELC's to counter it, as you noted.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

 

It's also likely banking on having other inefficient cap expiring the next couple years (Myers, Poolman) and the cap rising after being flat here.

 

Most teams have at least one inefficient contract/buyout/LTIR dead cap. OEL's buyout will be ours. It's not "ideal" by any means, but it's manageable, especially if you have a couple ELC's to counter it, as you noted.

 

Nope it's not, in a vacuum you can always argue dead cap sucks, but in context here it was the right move.

[stawns]

18 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

 

Problem was that to get the most out of OEL, we ironically needed players like Cole, Soucy (and now Zadorov) to play with him (same with Myers). But one of the few avenues to get the cap to add those guys... Was buying out OEL. That's on both management groups.

 

Benning for adding un-complementary guys he seemingly had no plan to add complementary players to, and poor cap management. Allvin for a massive, long buyout that will handicap the team for years (albeit likely a necessary evil to move the roster forward... but still poor cap management).

Disagree, they needed an actual defensive system.  A player like OEL doesn't suddenly forget how to play.  Regardless, it wasn't about whether OEL can play or not, it was who owns that responsibility now.

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Ditching oel was the right choice.

 

Only question is was the bet on our prospects the right call.

 

Ditching OEL and making subsequent moves, using that cap, to add complementary players in Cole and Soucy was the right choice. The proof is in our record thus far. But buying OEL out itself doesn't get us where we are, if you don't bring in players that actually fit needs. THAT was the important part IMO (and something Benning continually failed at).

[canuck73_3]

20 hours ago, stawns said:

 

OEL is 100% on the new management group

Absolving Benning of some blame for that is not it. So no, it's not ALL on the new group. And to boot the team has played better than ever since. 

[stawns]

Just now, canuck73_3 said:

Absolving Benning of some blame for that is not it. So no, it's not ALL on the new group. And to boot the team has played better than ever since. 

The question isn't whether it was the right or wrong move.  

[aGENT]

Just now, stawns said:

Disagree, they needed an actual defensive system.  A player like OEL doesn't suddenly forget how to play.  Regardless, it wasn't about whether OEL can play or not, it was who owns that responsibility now.

 The system and forward puck support are also both helping a LOT.

 

But we also had a mish mash of talented but redundant and un-complementary players on our back end. Hughes, OEL and Myers all need more defense first oriented partners and Benning just kept bringing in expensive offense leaning D, putting them together and wondering why it wasn't working.

[canuck73_3]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

The question isn't whether it was the right or wrong move.  

It still isn't entirely all on new management either though

[Whorvat]

58 minutes ago, stawns said:

Disagree, he likely would have been just as good in Van under Tocchet.  Also, the discussion about who owns the OEL situation now, not whether he'd be good in Van or not.  As soon as they decided to take on 6 years of dead cap, it became their issue

 

If Tocchet felt OEL would be serviceable under his coaching, very good chance he's still here

 

Between TW and HB, Allvin and co. ensured they had a plan to address the high cap hit years with a low cost ELC

[stawns]

1 minute ago, Whorvat said:

 

If Tocchet felt OEL would be serviceable under his coaching, very good chance he's still here

 

Between TW and HB, Allvin and co. ensured they had a plan to address the high cap hit years with a low cost ELC

No argument, it was an issue with RT

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, Whorvat said:

 

If Tocchet felt OEL would be serviceable under his coaching, very good chance he's still here

 

Between TW and HB, Allvin and co. ensured they had a plan to address the high cap hit years with a low cost ELC

 

It's not about whether OEL is a serviceable player (he is in FLA and could have been here, properly partnered, RT or otherwise). It's about roster construction.

 

Obtaining the better and younger Hronek had more to do with making buying out OEL, and using that cap on better roster fitting Cole and Soucy, feasible.

Edited January 2 by aGENT

[Whorvat]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

 

It's not about whether OEL is a serviceable player (he is in FLA and could have been here, properly partnered, RT or otherwise). It's about roster construction.

 

Obtaining the better and younger Hronek had more to do with making buying out OEL, and using that cap on better roster fitting Cole and Soucy, feasible.

 

Serviceable vs Roster construction is just semantics, you could argue he wasn't serviceable under RT due to roster construction or desired roster construction

[Diamonds]

30 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Ditching oel was the right choice.

 

Only question is was the bet on our prospects the right call.

The other part of that bet is Miller. He's playing well above his contract this season, but will he still be great at 34? It's possible he won't decline hard, but it's still making a bet.

 

The highest OEL buyout penalty years also coincide with what should be the most productive Miller years.

[Miss Korea]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

Disagree, he likely would have been just as good in Van under Tocchet.  Also, the discussion about who owns the OEL situation now, not whether he'd be good in Van or not.  As soon as they decided to take on 6 years of dead cap, it became their issue

 

At the time of the trade OEL was on one of the worst contracts in the league.  It was an insane risk for Benning to take on.

 

 

He seemed to tread enough water in his first season here but his transition/zone defence completely broke down in year two.  Overall play was way too poor to justify such a high cap hit.

 

 

Now that he's on a new team and gets to start fresh, he's filled in nicely for an extremely depleted Panthers blueline.  Good for him.  But had OEL stayed here, we would not have Cole/Soucy, and he'd continue having to play with Tyler Myers.  That pairing is one of the reasons why the Canucks were one of the worst defensive teams last year.

 

 

Different team, different system, different situation, different cap hit/expectation, different outcome.

 

21 minutes ago, Jayinblack said:

 

You sure about that?  Didn't Dubas get fired for playoff failure ?

 

Dubas is a notable exception when you really think about it.  Part of the blame is squarely on him for making some poor moves, and for his all-in teams repeatedly choking.  Part of the blame also falls on the media for placing an absurd level of expectations/criticism and controlling the narrative.  Toronto lost twice to the juggernaut Lightning.  And they lost to a Panthers team that steamrolled Carolina in the subsequent round.  Aside from the bubble year, their playoff opponents have been exceptionally tough.

[aGENT]

11 minutes ago, Whorvat said:

 

Serviceable vs Roster construction is just semantics, you could argue he wasn't serviceable under RT due to roster construction or desired roster construction

 

No, it's not semantics. Suggesting a player "isn't serviceable" is making an assertion of that player's individual ability. That would be inaccurate, proven by him being perfectly "serviceable", in a better fit, in FLA.

[Coryberg]

5 hours ago, stawns said:

Exactly, they made the decision and made the move.  They could have waited, see how OEL plays in an actual defensive system, then decide.  Now they've got 6 years of carrying that weight

They actually only have 4 extra years of carrying a 2.127mil weight (about 2% of the cap at that time) they actually get considerable savings over the first 4 years. Years 3 and 4 sting a bit but those are the years OEL would have been even slower and a bigger liability. The 2.3 million in savings should still be enough for a replacement that will out perform the ghost of OEL.

 

This was on Benning all day.

[PureQuickness]

5 hours ago, Alflives said:

Yup. Benning (giving in to the owner as he always did) made a very bad trade. New management cleared up part of that Benning mess with the OElevator buyout. 

 

But that's the thing. It's not really clearing anything spacewise, except 1 million. The buyout move was basically meaningless.

 

Aside from this though, new management has obviously made the right moves most of the time. It's a big contrast from the previous regime. Weird thing is that people using the logic to defend new management is flip-flopping when it comes to the good decisions made by the previous management. For example, the core of the team is STILL Benning's. Suddenly the new found success is attributed mostly to Allvin, which is not entirely true. Allvin is somewhat similar to Gillis in that he has been able to complement the roster with VERY GOOD moves. I'm a HUGE fan of Joshua and also Blueger. These are fantastic deals that Benning never could find at all.

[Whorvat]

17 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

No, it's not semantics. Suggesting a player "isn't serviceable" is making an assertion of that player's individual ability. That would be inaccurate, proven by him being perfectly "serviceable", in a better fit, in FLA.

When its directly in reference to being serviceable under Tocchets coaching, yes it is semantics.

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, Whorvat said:

When its directly in reference to being serviceable under Tocchets coaching, yes it is semantics.

 

Properly partnered, he would have been serviceable under RT though, so no, it isn't.

[Whorvat]

21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Properly partnered, he would have been serviceable under RT though, so no, it isn't.

You must know more than Tocchet and Allvin, surprised you don't have an NHL gig

[Miss Korea]

26 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Properly partnered, he would have been serviceable under RT though, so no, it isn't.

 

His partner would've been Myers.  It would've only ever been with Myers.  We'll never truly know how that pairing would've improved under Tocchet/Gonchar/Foote, but it would've also limited the rest of our roster options.  We got two solid defencemen for the price of one.  That can't be understated, even if the price was steep.

[aGENT]

12 minutes ago, Whorvat said:

You must know more than Tocchet and Allvin, surprised you don't have an NHL gig

 

Again, needing cap to remake the roster by adding Cole and Soucy, and acquiring  Hronek, meant buying out OEL was one of our few options that made sense, to remake a roster that needed pretty serious structural changes. It's not the OEL isn't a serviceable player, or that OEL couldn't be serviceable under Tocchett. Has nothing to do with "knowing more" than them either. I'm simply understanding their motivations, the restrictions and avenues they had to improve the roster.

 

4 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

His partner would've been Myers.  It would've only ever been with Myers.  We'll never truly know how that pairing would've improved under Tocchet/Gonchar/Foote, but it would've also limited the rest of our roster options.  We got two solid defencemen for the price of one.  That can't be understated, even if the price was steep.

 

I'm aware. That's one of the reasons it was the clear avenue to take. OEL and Myers aren't/weren't a complementary pairing (regardless of coach), one of them needed to go if we were going to improve the roster/back end this season. Acquiring the younger, better Hronek made OEL that much more expendable. Buying out OEL freed up the cap this year to add MUCH needed, complementary players in Cole Soucy.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, PureQuickness said:

 

But that's the thing. It's not really clearing anything spacewise, except 1 million. The buyout move was basically meaningless.

 

Aside from this though, new management has obviously made the right moves most of the time. It's a big contrast from the previous regime. Weird thing is that people using the logic to defend new management is flip-flopping when it comes to the good decisions made by the previous management. For example, the core of the team is STILL Benning's. Suddenly the new found success is attributed mostly to Allvin, which is not entirely true. Allvin is somewhat similar to Gillis in that he has been able to complement the roster with VERY GOOD moves. I'm a HUGE fan of Joshua and also Blueger. These are fantastic deals that Benning never could find at all.

The core of this team is almost all Linden and Bracket. Benning wanted other players, like OJ, and Glass. He was incompetent.