Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Noble 6

Members
  • Posts

    3,519
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Noble 6

  1. I think trading Boeser would be bad for the Canucks for the following reasons: Boeser is a goal scorer and goal scorers are rare, more so than I think most people realize. Boeser is a good one and if we moved him we would be trying to replace him for a long time. Boeser's contract concerns are overblown in my opinion. A long term contract around 7.5M is right in line with what players of Boeser's production get. Anything over 8 and it's more of a concern, but I genuinely don't think it will get that far. Boeser is an original core member that has grown with the young players and veterans in the organization. We all witnessed how the 2020 offseason when Tanev, Toffoli, Markstrom and Stetcher all left. Now is the time when we should commit to keeping our core players around and facilitating their growth. Boeser actually has proven that he is effective in the Playoffs. He was very, very solid for us in three rounds in the 2020 Playoffs. He scored some big goals, some greasy goals, was responsible defensively and didn't back down. 11 points in 17 games is pretty good for his first time in the Playoffs. Boeser is young enough to still align with our new window of contention. This is the main reason why I think it makes more sense to move Miller than Boeser (not that Miller will be bad, but Boeser just fits more cleanly). I know he's been in rumours for what feels like the last 2-3 years, but I hope he doesn't get moved.
  2. At the height of our tailspin I would have done Horvat for Lafreniere assuming Horvat wanted out, but there's no upside to trading Pettersson right now.
  3. Heiskanen is just as good as Makar and Fox, but plays on Dallas. Him, Hughes, Theodore, Chabot, Werenski, etc. would hit 60 points playing in Colorado.
  4. Agreed, it makes me wonder what a series that retold the events of the entire prequel trilogy would look like. Or even the better, an Old Republic series. Anyways, glad we could talk about this in this thread.
  5. I heard Clone Wars was good but I was skeptical and waited a while, but you're right it was very well executed. The last 4 episodes of season 7 are probably as good as any Star Wars media after the original trilogy.
  6. Boeser for Severson is a structure that could make sense. We would need some assurance that Severson would be willing to re-sign, but he hasn't been great this year and might be a bit of a risk in that sense. Boeser for Carlo is another outline that makes a lot of sense but I don't think the Bruins would be willing to trade him.
  7. This is the exact deal I have in mind, just with less retention on Miller and an extension in place for the Rangers. I'm not sold on Kravtsov but the talent level might be worth giving a shot. The Rangers trade from a position of strength (young RHD) and move a problem asset to strengthen an important position where they are kind of fragile.
  8. I seriously doubt Chychrun will be traded unless he requests one. They other player that I would be really interested in is Keller. They already moved Garland so they may be interested in getting rid of another long term contract. Keller (1M retained) for Pearson + Klimovich + pick.
  9. For his current antics I would think he's on the outside in terms of being "core" member compared to Hughes, Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser and Demko. With that said, I find it really tough to trade him. He's the engine of the team when he's going and if Pettersson wants him around then it might hurt the team too much to move him. The problem is we haven't seen that form since the bubble really; he put up a lot of points last year playing half as well as he could. If the Canucks want to do any damage in the Playoffs they'll need him to their best player again. It's a gamble but I don't think Benning would risk something so important until he's forced to, (ie. Hughes, Horvat and Pettersson want him gone). I agree. I just pointed it out above but if the Canucks want to do any damage this year in the Playoffs, they'll need Miller to be driving them again.
  10. I find Miller extremely frustrating to watch. He can go out on one shift and be dominant physically, aggressive and clever with the puck and then the next shift look lazy, disinterested, annoyed and sloppy. He collects points while playing his best for like a third of his ice time an a game. Another thing I noticed is that he seems to chirp his teammates a lot too. There's nothing wrong with that, but it get's on your nerves quickly when you are making lazy mistakes.
  11. A lot of people take this way too seriously. The Canucks really shouldn't ruin or make your day except for a handful of times during the regular season and the Playoffs if they get there. There's a difference between keeping up with every little detail of the organization and investing in every little detail of the organization. For example, losing Gadjovich and MacEwan on waivers sucks, but that's hardly anything to tear down the organization for. If Pettersson or Hughes were traded in a bad deal, that would be different. No matter what happens, we are just the people sitting at home watching some people actually do something. We should not have our pride and ego hurt so often by something we're not directly involved in.
  12. I agree that Miller is the most likely "core" member to be let go. With that said, I'm not sure Benning would be interested in moving him if it makes our team considerably worse, which it will if the deal involves futures. An interesting idea that I was discussing with a Wild fan was a Miller for Fiala trade. Fiala may price himself out of Minnesota and Miller can play center for them. The Canucks get the younger player with more potential. It would depend on what Fiala is asking for on his next contract and what else would need to be involved to complete the deal, but I really like Fiala as a player and I would be very interested in that.
  13. So basically you're going off a hunch because you don't like the way he acted. Don't you think that's a little ridiculous?
  14. Kane was running away with scoring title in 2015 before he broke his collarbone. Chicago used that LTIR space to acquire Vermette, a center which they needed. Kane came back for the Playoffs and the Hawks won the Cup, although Kane was definitely playing injured.
  15. I don't understand anyone who seriously believes that Tampa would prevent arguably their best player and one of the best talents in the world to sit out before relying on him to carry them through the most brutal and demanding postseason of any sport once, let alone twice in a row. It seems like they're just mad because Kucherov is so good that he can come back after half a year recovering from a significant injury and still be better than everyone when it matters the most. The level of dominance he showed in the last two Playoffs is nothing short of spectacular; he's doing what Kane did in the first half of the 2010s.
  16. Pettersson at 7.7M for 3 years is more expensive than I would have thought but nothing ridiculous. I would have liked him close to 7M given the Barzal comparable but he could have been between 7-7.5M. Overall solid I guess. Hughes for 6 years is nice; I would have been happy going up to 8 years even with a cap hit over 8M to be honest. This one is pretty great. I think both players woke up and decided to get a deal done today.
  17. I wonder how open they are to moving Keller. He's a good young piece but he's not on a cheap deal and hasn't broken out as a top-end point producer. If they were willing to move Garland after the year he had then maybe Keller could be a possibility. It would take something valuable to get him though, something like Hoglander+. Miller - Pettersson - Garland Keller - Horvat - Boeser Pearson - Dickinson - Podkolzin
  18. I was really high on Jasek early as I think he has good physical traits that could make him an NHLer in the mold of Jesper Fast. But at camp last year, he still looked like a kid playing against men. He would get worked over along the boards rather easily and was definitely more reactive than proactive. I expected him to get stronger and use that in combination with his speed and quickness to be a fast, annoying, tenacious forechecker, but it didn't look like that materialized. Lockwood seems to have overcome his injury history and taken that role. I think he'll need a special order of some Brian Burke truculence to become an NHLer in the role the Canucks want him in.
  19. They did, and Seguin did pretty well in the Playoffs for a rookie. He scored that big goal against Tampa where he turnstiled the defenseman and buried it. Even after that, their management team (which included Benning) decided to move him.
  20. I don't think Makar is a good comparable for Pettersson at all as they play different positions. Your assessment of who should get 10M+ on a deal is pretty reasonable. Again, that has no bearing on what Pettersson or any other RFA does; It's a case by case thing that depends on the demeanor of the player, the team, the owner, the fit, etc. Heiskanen definitely could have gotten a more expensive deal (especially for 8 years), but he prioritized staying in Dallas over everything else. William Karlsson did the same thing in Vegas; he prioritized term over cap hit. Then there are players like Tkachuk (either one) who set the bar high and never waiver. For every Pastrnak or MacKinnon that is willing to take less, there are other players like Stone or Werenski that take every dollar that they feel they deserve. I think one important distinction to make in this situation is that a player fighting to get what they feel they are worth is not related to their commitment to winning. As fans, the two are intertwined from our perspective because we are only invested in the cap hit that the team has to deal with. From the player's perspective, the money that they get on their contract effects their entire life outside of hockey. Player's aren't actively trying to sabotage their team by getting high numbers, they're employees trying to get the best paycheck possible. It's management's responsibility to build the team around the contracts that they give out. If and ony if, management feels that they won't be able to sign someone for under 10M AND they feel that they can't win with someone making 10M+, then they have a responsibility to make a tough call and trade them. These are the tough decisions that the big boys in management are paid for. Boston probably has the two best modern examples of this: the Thornton and Seguin trades. Management felt that for whatever reasons, these guys did not fit with the team that they were trying to build to be successful. They made the tough decision and moved them. They were probably motivated by reasons other than cap, but the principle is the same. You can argue whether or not their assessment was accurate or not, but they made a call and followed through with it. If management comes to the conclusion that Pettersson won't fit with their idea of a winning team, then they should move him. If they sign him for 10M+, then it should be because they feel they can win with him at that cap hit. The motivation shouldn't be any more complicated than that.
×
×
  • Create New...