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

JM_

Members
  • Posts

    52,426
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    104

Everything posted by JM_

  1. I would think it would make someone like Pearson more available, not Miller.
  2. he's also a bit of a no-show in the playoffs. Hard pass on this guy, I wouldn't want him for anything significant.
  3. based on the view thats probably taken from the rooftop deck of the Aquilini building next to Rogers. Good sign if they are showing him where he's going to live.
  4. interesting that Kuzmeko's agent is also the agent for Zadorov and Milheyev.... maybe we solve our UFA issues via mother Russia. https://www.goldstarhockey.com/clients We are all gold star?
  5. OK I think we've had our fun, you're starting to get a little obnoxious. Its OK to just disagree.
  6. yep. Thats why we need to hang on to our valuable talent now (unless there's some kind of actual roster quality for quality hockey trade). Lets move Myers, Pearson, Dickie, Poolman and Garland first, and see what we can do to improve the club before we burn off our elite talent for magic beans.
  7. LOL, lucky for us, we have him for 2 more years at 7.3. If Petey ends up being worth more on his next deal, then thats a great problem to have. no I didn't miss it, I just don't happen to agree with you. kid?
  8. yep, we need d that can actually play defence. Its shaping up to be OEL, Hughes and maybe Rathbone for our skilled puck movers (who also happen to be good defensively) so if JR/PA can add some sound defensive partners I think we'll be in good shape. We don't need guys that are high point producers paired with them. I would love to add someone the size of Bichsel to the group. Its why I don't see us being that far away from being competitive IF they can bring in solid defensemen for OEL and Hughes. We're going to have big bodies in Podz and Klimovich but we need more wingers in that style imo, which we should be able to draft more of in later rounds and/or UFAs.
  9. I think what gets missed a bit in this discussion is we have 3 C's that do different things well. Yay us. Petey is more of the new school, smaller C/skilled winger and does amazing Petey things, but you'd want Bo taking that PK draw, and you'd want Miller out in the last 2 minutes of the game if you're down a goal. Just my 2 cents, but I love the idea of building out from the net, with more puck moving d and up through strong C depth. Its always easier to find wingers from year to year. Locking down Miller, Petey and Bo seems like a nice problem to have imo.
  10. pretty much. We're not getting Schneider and A LaF is off the table unless we're adding. I feel like there was this over exuberance with a Miller deal that got people lathered up, and once it became clear it wasn't going to be a major 4 piece deal, then people started settling. How about we just keep Miller on a reasonable deal? oh the horror. yup they paid a lot for him, they'll be looking to extend him for sure, maybe at the expense of letting Strome walk.
  11. yeah we could end up there. As we've discussed before, as long as its nicely front loaded and doesn't have NMC's in the last 2-3 years then that AAV is workable. We can always flip him to a bottom feeder thats looking for low cost AAV when he hits his decline.
  12. thats your pricing, not mine I love how worked up you get having Petey, Miller and Bo on good contracts (i.e. all under 8 mil AAV) is a great idea. We can build around them with younger wingers and veteran UFA wingers like many teams attract when they are back in contention. No video game needed.
  13. there are many different ways competitive teams are put together in the NHL, there's no one method.
  14. I'd be giddy with something around 7x7.
  15. you're forgetting about PP time in there, and also you're only talking about one style of F play. With Petey, Miller and Bo we can run three scoring lines. We also have a lot more talent in place to deal with injuries. I understand your preference for style but its not the only option for the team.
  16. cool. So explain why e.g, 21 mil for 3 C's is worse than 21 mil for 2 C's and a winger if they all produce the same points.
  17. more than anything, that COL trade moved some salary and a player they didn't need. Yes COL got Byram back, but up until very recently he wasn't really contributing much. So we can get the same immediate effect by moving Myers and Pearson, e.g., and use the cap space the way COL did and extend our best players.
  18. I guess he might price himself out of our market, but if there's a deal to be had long term with him that makes sense you have to do it imo. You have to retain top talent.
  19. the problem is none of the trade proposals we've seen would set the Canucks up like those trades. Sorry but Chytil, Lundkvist and a late 1st isn't going to set the Canucks up for a future run.
  20. I think you'd have to get the player to agree that they'd never come back to play for this to work but in Ferland case e.g, it would be good.
  21. and this ^ is a very good thing. Its why I don't want to see our C depth blown up, this is the kind of depth you win with imo. JR's job is getting the right support for these guys imo.
×
×
  • Create New...