boxiebrown

Yes, and I said in my post, "some of their players use size" to possess the puck. Of course they do. My point is that there are many ways to be an effective hockey player, and if we write off every player below 6'0, we're missing out on a ton of useful players.

I didn't say they stay away from big players. Obviously, if you can find a big player who's also skilled, you go for it. Look at LA's draft picks again. Virtually all of them produced at an excellent level (relative to their draft slot) before they were drafted. It's also really disingenuous to pretend that they picked guys like Pearson, Toffoli, or Vey because they're "big." Not too mention that LA has drafted a ton of average sized, skilled puck moving defencemen in the last few years (McKeown, Miller, Ebert, Leslie.) The point is that LA doesn't fetishize size and "toughness" to the exclusion of skill. Unless you think that every player at 6'0 or 6'1 counts as picking size over skill.

It's a huge misconception that "skill" players can only contribute by scoring. I agree that ideally you want two-way players. But skill players can be great defensive players. Look at Backstrom and Datsyuk, for example, or Plekanec. These are all guys who use positioning, speed and skill to be very effective defensive players. A lot of people also seem to conflate "physical" with "solid defensively." Finishing your checks is great and all, but it's actually a very small part of the game. The best "physical" forwards use their size and strength to control the puck and contribute on offence. So in that way, if a so-called physical player is not putting up numbers, they're also not really contributing much. Of course, some physical players are also excellent defensive players (Kopitar, Hanzal, Getzlaf, etc.) But again, size is just a tool they use, and there are other tools that can accomplish the same thing. We shouldn't be afraid of drafting skill players, as they can be just as effective two-way players as bigger guys.

Please show me the evidence that smaller teams can't beat bigger teams. The size fetishism on CDC is truly bizarre. Like, guys, the Boston series was 3.5 years ago and we didn't lose because we were "small." It's time to move on. LA doesn't win because they're "big" and "play with an edge." They win because they possess the hell out of the puck. Some of their players use size to do that, some use skill. We should acquire players that will help us be just as good as possessing the puck as LA. It really isn't rocket science. The funny thing is that even LA doesn't actually believe in this size obsession. They draft based on offensive production and puck skills, and if they player is also big, it's a bonus. For example, they drafted 5'9 Spencer Watson in the 7th round, who scored a PPG in junior. Meanwhile, we were drafting "big" dudes who are marginal CHL players. I wonder which strategy will work out better?

Having said that, I think it's (obviously) too early to be really discouraged by Virtanen's performance. One, it's a super small sample size, and two, he's coming off of injury. On the other hand, if he DOES stagnate in production this year, it would definitely validate some of the pre-draft criticisms of Virtanen, specifically that his linemates were driving his production, and that his goal scoring was the result on an unsustainably high shooting percentage. So those storylines definitely bear watching. The good thing is that Virtanen is still so young, so a poor post-draft season wouldn't be nearly as discouraging for him as for a lot of prospects. His 2015-16 CHL season will be really interesting.

We can't compete with LA because we don't have as many good players as them. Thus, I wanted us to draft the player with the most potential to be a good player, which was Nylander. That would increase our chances of having good players, and therefore help us compete against LA and other good teams. It adds up pretty well!

Listen, I wanted us to draft Nylander and I still think he will be the better player. Having said that, Virtanen is a perfectly fine prospect and I hope he turns out great for us. But I really want to address the idea that Virtanen was a better pick because of our "needs." Drafting a player based on the deficiencies of your team in the previous season is straight up INSANE. A player's peak is between 25-28. That's 7-10 years from now for Virtanen. We have absolutely no idea what the Canucks will look like in 7 years, and no idea what that team will need. This is why drafting best player available is the right call 99% of the time. The same goes for the argument that we needed to draft Virtanen because we need to get bigger to deal with the team's in our division. Again, who knows what the Sharks, Ducks and Kings will look like in a decade? Heck, there could easily be expansion and realignment in the next 5 years. And then of course there's the fact that there's no proof whatsoever that smaller, skill teams can't beat "big" teams. Again, I hope Virtanen turns out great for us (I think his best case scenario is something like Evander Kane, which I would be ecstatic about). But I also really, really hope that Benning realizes how crazy it is to draft based on team need, and that drafting for skill over size is typically a much more successful strategy.

Thanks. I agree that the key thing is term. If we sign Miller at a 2 year term, I will not agree with the deal, but it will be very low risk. I don't anticipate us contending in the next two years, so it won't matter in the long run anyways. If we sign him for a longer term deal, though, I'd be extremely worried.

Miller has had one "elite" year in his 9 year career. Literally every other year he has been average. His career numbers are much worse than Luongo's, Lundqvist's. Price's and Rinne's. I already addressed this, but I want to make it clear. You simply cannot explain Miller's average numbers by saying that he played for poor teams. It's actually only very recently that Buffalo became a terrible team, and Miller's performance has not been noticeably affected by the strength of the teams in front of him. Look at Buffalo's record, and Miller's numbers for his career: 05/06 - Buffalo 110 points, Miller .914 save % 06/07 - 113 points, .911 save % 07/08 - 90 points, .906 save % 08/09 - 91 points, .918 save % 09/10 - 100 points, .929 save % 10/11 - 96 points, .916 save % 11/12 - 89 points, .916 save % 12/13 - 48 points (equivalent of 82 points), .915 save % 13/14 - Buf - 52 points (lol), .923 save % 13/14 - Stl - 111 points, .903 save % As you can see, there is no correlation between Buffalo's record and Miller's performance. In his early career, Buffalo was a competitive team, and Miller posted mediocre numbers. As the Sabres have declined, Miller's performance has continued to been average. Even on the excellent, defensively sound Blues, he did not post great numbers. Miller was truly excellent in 2010, and deserved the Vezina that year. But he was not elite before that, and he has not been elite since then. He has been very average since then, and expecting him to repeat that performance at the age of 34 is foolish. Also, Jose Theodore, Jim Carey and Olaf Kolzig have all won the Vezina. So yes, average goalies do win the Vezina!

I picture them breaking out the defibrillator and miraculously rescuing me. And then as I lay there recovering in the hospital, a breaking news bulletin comes over the radio: "The Canucks have signed Dave Bolland to a 6 year deal..." Code Blue.

Buffalo has not been a terrible team for all of Miller's career though. In 2008/09, 2010/11 and 2011/12 the Sabres were either good or average, and Miller posted average numbers. Once Buffalo got truly terrible, Miller's numbers haven't really declined - in fact his time with Buffalo last year was his best stretch of play since 2010. You really can't blame Miller's numbers on Buffalo. Teams can control the quantity of shots a goalie faces, but have very little control over the quality of such shots. Miller has posted average numbers on good teams, average teams and bad teams. Because he's an average goalie.

Here's hoping

No, he's not. Over the last 4 years he is 15th in save percentage, with a .916 mark. Right next to Fleury and Ward. He is a very average goalie. I might die of laughter if we sign Miller tomorrow.

Yeah, goalies only get better with age! Look at Marty Broduer - still as good as he ever was! We should probably offer Miller 7 or 8 years to make sure we lock him up for his prime.

If we're gonna sign a veteran goalie to take the heat off Lack, we should offer 10 million to Brodeur. He would be a huge help to our pursuit of McDavid.