aGENT Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Miller + Weber to SJ for Burrish and their 2nd pick. Why we do it: We get Miller's cap hit off the books and keep the better, younger, cheaper two goalies and gain back a missing 2nd round pick. Burrish' cap it is only $900K most of which comes off the books being waived to Utica but his salary is $1.85m which our deeper pocketed owners can more readily pay. Given the current market, Miller alone would likely at best get us a 3rd/4th (possibly with retained salary) and Weber likely a 4th/5th. Packaged, I think we'd get that 2nd. We have to trade one of Weber/Clendening/Corrado as they're all waiver eligible or risk losing one for nothing. Why they do it: They need a goalie and Miller will give them solid goaltending for 2 years (low commitment) while they develop Bergvik and while they've still got Thornton/Marleau allowing them to remain competitive. Stalock continues as a capable backup. Taking back Burrish basically means they basically get Miller at $4.2M salary / $5.1m cap hit. This season. I don't think they get a better goalie for cheaper via UFA and certainly not with only 2 years commitment. They also need a PMD and I don't think they win either the Green or Ehrhoff sweepstakes. Weber, while nowhere near either's calibre gives them an NHL player with offensive ability on a cheap RFA contract. He cheaply fills a need until they find a more permanent solution. Go ahead, pick it apart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiffyPB Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 SJ is trying to get younger. An old goalie they could have gotten for free by out-bidding us last season who came off his worst season and a major knee injury isn't ideal and is a waste of a pick they could have used to get younger. Why go that route when they already have an average goalie in Niemi locked up for another season on a cheaper deal and less term? Swap Miller for Lack and that's how you'll get them to play ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 Niemi's a UFA. He's not locked up. They need a goalie. They didn't need a goalie last year and not only do they not have to out bid us, they get him for the equivalent of a $4.2M salary / $5.1m cap hit. AKA: cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirbs11 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 SJ is trying to get younger. An old goalie they could have gotten for free by out-bidding us last season who came off his worst season and a major knee injury isn't ideal and is a waste of a pick they could have used to get younger. Why go that route when they already have an average goalie in Niemi locked up for another season on a cheaper deal and less term? Swap Miller for Lack and that's how you'll get them to play ball. Try again they couldn't of had him last year as they had Niemi in net at 4 million, Niemi is now a UFA and they have only Statlock, with Marleau and Thornton not getting any younger they need a #1 goalie to help them contend now. Comparing teams i think Miller would play much better in SJ as i believe there D would Compliment him better than ours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Miller + Weber to SJ for Burrish and their 2nd pick. Why we do it: We get Miller's cap hit off the books and keep the better, younger, cheaper two goalies and gain back a missing 2nd round pick. Burrish' cap it is only $900K most of which comes off the books being waived to Utica but his salary is $1.85m which our deeper pocketed owners can more readily pay. Given the current market, Miller alone would likely at best get us a 3rd/4th (possibly with retained salary) and Weber likely a 4th/5th. Packaged, I think we'd get that 2nd. We have to trade one of Weber/Clendening/Corrado as they're all waiver eligible or risk losing one for nothing. Why they do it: They need a goalie and Miller will give them solid goaltending for 2 years (low commitment) while they develop Bergvik and while they've still got Thornton/Marleau allowing them to remain competitive. Stalock continues as a capable backup. Taking back Burrish basically means they basically get Miller at $4.2M salary / $5.1m cap hit. This season. I don't think they get a better goalie for cheaper via UFA and certainly not with only 2 years commitment. They also need a PMD and I don't think they win either the Green or Ehrhoff sweepstakes. Weber, while nowhere near either's calibre gives them an NHL player with offensive ability on a cheap RFA contract. He cheaply fills a need until they find a more permanent solution. Go ahead, pick it apart have you pitched this to sj fans to see what they think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 have you pitched this to sj fans to see what they think? Sharks fans would hate it. #39 is a good enough pick to add a decent prospect to one of the worst prospect pools in the NHL. I think people on this forum overestimate the value of an aging, declining overpaid goalie who has never ever led his team anywhere in the playoffs. If the Sharks are moving away from Niemi its because they are likely looking for a goalie with a long term future in between the pipes. I doubt that is Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 As I say every time someone suggests Miller to SJ, why wouldn't they just keep Niemi if they wanted an established goalie? They aren't worried about being tops in the league at this point, and they've stated they want a younger goalie to grow with the team (which is why they're moving away from Niemi). I haven't heard anything to say Niemi wants out. Maybe he wouldn't take a shorter deal, but even if they give him a 4 year deal, they can have the option to trade him when they find the young goalie to replace him. I just don't see why they would prefer to trade assets for Miller when they could keep Niemi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 As I say every time someone suggests Miller to SJ, why wouldn't they just keep Niemi if they wanted an established goalie? They aren't worried about being tops in the league at this point, and they've stated they want a younger goalie to grow with the team (which is why they're moving away from Niemi). I haven't heard anything to say Niemi wants out. Maybe he wouldn't take a shorter deal, but even if they give him a 4 year deal, they can have the option to trade him when they find the young goalie to replace him. I just don't see why they would prefer to trade assets for Miller when they could keep Niemi. Niemi will likely want more than that $4.2M salary / $5.1m cap hit and/or for longer term than they're comfortable with and it gives them a couple years to develop Bergvik/find someone else while remaining competitive with Thornton/Marleau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiffyPB Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Niemi's a UFA. He's not locked up. They need a goalie. They didn't need a goalie last year and not only do they not have to out bid us, they get him for the equivalent of a $4.2M salary / $5.1m cap hit. AKA: cheaper. Niemi can be signed for less. 6 million is 6 million, you can't imagine that his salary suddenly decreases just because we take Burish as a dump. 900K cap savings in the grand scheme of things is nothing and you are completely ignoring the fact that a team who has stated they want to get younger has to give up the 39th pick in a strong draft to get those "savings." Niemi doesn't involve sacrificing a pick and can be signed for less than Miller is because of his performance this year. Burish's contract does not impede SJ as much as you think. Lack is something SJ is far more interested in. Younger and ready for the job. Thinking SJ wants Miller is like thinking some chick you've seen every day in class but never talked once all year really wants to go out with you just because she looked at you once for more than 5 seconds at the beginning of the year when you stumbled in late for class. Try again they couldn't of had him last year as they had Niemi in net at 4 million, Niemi is now a UFA and they have only Statlock, with Marleau and Thornton not getting any younger they need a #1 goalie to help them contend now. Comparing teams i think Miller would play much better in SJ as i believe there D would Compliment him better than ours A GM that dumped Boyle and still wants to dump Thornton and a declining Marleau wants to be "contending?" If those guys were willing to waive, Wilson would ditch those guys for picks faster then he would a 3rd world 10 cent hooker fresh out of crystal meth. If Miller was really the solution, Wilson could have traded Niemi even if it meant getting only a nickel on the dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Honestly if Miller went on waivers, I doubt he would get a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 Niemi can be signed for less. 6 million is 6 million, you can't imagine that his salary suddenly decreases just because we take Burish as a dump. 900K cap savings in the grand scheme of things is nothing and you are completely ignoring the fact that a team who has stated they want to get younger has to give up the 39th pick in a strong draft to get those "savings." Niemi doesn't involve sacrificing a pick and can be signed for less than Miller is because of his performance this year. Burish's contract does not impede SJ as much as you think. Lack is something SJ is far more interested in. Younger and ready for the job. Thinking SJ wants Miller is like thinking some chick you've seen every day in class but never talked once all year really wants to go out with you just because she looked at you once for more than 5 seconds at the beginning of the year when you stumbled in late for class. A GM that dumped Boyle and still wants to dump Thornton and a declining Marleau wants to be "contending?" If those guys were willing to waive, Wilson would ditch those guys for picks faster then he would a 3rd world 10 cent hooker fresh out of crystal meth. If Miller was really the solution, Wilson could have traded Niemi even if it meant getting only a nickel on the dollar. Salary is salary. Cap space is cap space. They're paying Burrish $1.85m / $900K cap hit to not play for them. Take that away for them and it costs them less equivalent dollars for MIller. We could even entertain adding Brown or Smith or taking Torres instead. It's simply a more effective way of "retaining salary". We signed Miller while still getting younger I have no doubt Lack's more attractive. That's why I'd prefer to keep him! He's worth more than their 39th to us...never mind us taking any bad contracts back. I'm willing to bet Niemi's going to get closer to $4.5+ X 5 from somebody. But they're not willing to waive...are they? He's got to make the best of a bad situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Doug Wilson is looking to go younger in net, and maybe even go after Anderson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 Doug Wilson is looking to go younger in net, and maybe even go after Anderson A lot more competition there and a much higher price tag. SJ's going to be a bridesmaid a lot this summer IMO...at least I hope so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon45ca Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Honestly if Miller went on waivers, I doubt he would get a claim. What? They guy had 6 SO's in 45 games, he'd get snapped up in a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 As I say every time someone suggests Miller to SJ, why wouldn't they just keep Niemi if they wanted an established goalie? They aren't worried about being tops in the league at this point, and they've stated they want a younger goalie to grow with the team (which is why they're moving away from Niemi). I haven't heard anything to say Niemi wants out. Maybe he wouldn't take a shorter deal, but even if they give him a 4 year deal, they can have the option to trade him when they find the young goalie to replace him. I just don't see why they would prefer to trade assets for Miller when they could keep Niemi. niemi throws a hissy fit and sj acquires Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Adam Burrish? lol That guy shouldn't even be in the league. No thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 Adam Burrish? lol That guy shouldn't even be in the league. No thanks He isn't in this league. I think you misunderstand the his purpose in this proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 A lot more competition there and a much higher price tag. SJ's going to be a bridesmaid a lot this summer IMO...at least I hope so I hope so as well. Just imagine if they don’t and do end up with Green/Ehrhoff and Lack on their roster, all for the price tag of a second round pick. As I have said before. I agree with your points, I see where you are coming from on this proposal and realistically value is probably accurate considering the goalie market but I just don’t see SJ or Canucks going that route. Canucks are going to make the safe deals without ruffling any feathers. Means trading away Lack. Sharks are going to want to take on as little risk (cap) as possible. If things go south with Miller your stuck with his cap, on the flip side if things go south with Lack, you at the very least have a solid back up that costs next to nothing. Good proposal, just don’t think it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 Canucks are going to make the safe deals without ruffling any feathers. Means trading away Lack. Sharks are going to want to take on as little risk (cap) as possible. If things go south with Miller your stuck with his cap, on the flip side if things go south with Lack, you at the very least have a solid back up that costs next to nothing. Good proposal, just don’t think it happens. Sadly, you're probably right (and I'm in no way denying that). We probably lose Lack this summer instead. But I think it's a mistake and I think there's a realistic deal with SJ for Miller to make out there...if they are indeed bridesmaids this summer *fingers crossed*. I'm really interested in what Benning has up his sleeves here and how he plans to reshape our D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada Hockey Place Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 If SJ wants Miller, then maybe they would consider moving Thornton or Marleau out in the process? Similar $ and term left. NYR would be a teams they would waive for IMO. SJS: Miller NYR: Thornton or Marleau VAN: Boyle, Lindberg VAN gets a vet RHD with 1 yr remaining. A stop gap/mentor for the many guys in the system who could be rotated in slowly. Lindberg would fit perfect. Pushing Vey in VAN or leading the top line in Utica next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.