-
Posts
8,240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Gawdzukes
-
[Rumour] J.T. Miller Trade/Contract Talks
Gawdzukes replied to Podzilla's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
A face only a mother in denial could love -
[Rumour] J.T. Miller Trade/Contract Talks
Gawdzukes replied to Podzilla's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Sorry me too. Nothing wrong with your math at all Fanuck. I was more just going through all the numbers in my head non playoff team + 50-60 million dollar contract + horrid RD + swiss cheese bottom 6 + zero capspace + 38 years old at conclusion of contract = bad math -
[Rumour] J.T. Miller Trade/Contract Talks
Gawdzukes replied to Podzilla's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
My grade one math teacher is groaning from the great beyond. -
I don't think the fanbase could take it for one but why blow it up when you already have the young building blocks required to move forward? That would be silly. A bit like throwing a temper tantrum because there is a cap limit and just burning your own house down in frustration. No point to it really. You just have to rebuild your house. It seems like you're really just not ready to acknowledge or understand what has already been recorded by pen on paper and stated multiple times. JR and co feel there are some real good building blocks but the team needs some serious re-structuring and cap relief. Simple really. Call it whatever you want our core is young, Miller and Pearson can go. @JM_ I agree blow it up, just keep Hughes, Petterson, Demko, Podkolzin, Hoglander, Dermott, (23 yrs average age for those 6) Bo, OEL (too hard to trade). 65% blow up.
-
No he shouldn't be but if Miller and Petey are still on the team something has to give there right? Petterson on Bo's wing is mildly interesting but as we've seen it doesn't seem to be overly effective. In addition it seems a complete miscast to me. So then Petey is 3rd line or I guess we force Petey back onto Miller's wing. $6.5m or more for a third line Center (warning bells) seems like a cap mistake. Kind of like keeping two starting goaltenders. How do we afford any quality wingers? Sounds a lot like we're just keeping the same team. Not really looking forward to that. This is off topic but I'm warming up to the idea or re-uniting Bo with one of his wedding groomsmen Domi. At least we know they play well together. I don't know I guess we're different people. If I'am a Captain of the team I look at it as my responsibility. I take pride in that and I don't go down without a fight. I wouldn't look down on him at all but I just see him being up for the challenge. To be honest that hasn't even crossed my mind. I could very well be wrong. Conceded. Again though it's a risk I'm fully willing to take. If that's the case get rid of him in the summer. We could sign Miller and make him Captain (but I would just rebuild then). I take that $9 mil and put it somewhere useful on a guy like Parayko (or similar), or a high scoring winger to play in the top 6 with Petey in two years time. We don't and probably shouldn't spend that money right now. That's the short-sighted approach we've been seeing for 10 years now. This would be money to spend when we're close to being competitive, not a non-playoff team.
-
Well the Miller contract looks to be an anchor no matter how you cut it so I guess all we can hope it's magically (very small chance) not. We can also hope it doesn't rain in Vancouver in May but I'm not putting any faith in it. Bo will get and sign a reasonable deal imo. If we sign Miller then I think we let Bo go (trade) anyway. Just as negligent as keeping Miller would be signing a $6.5m 3rd liner when we have multiple glaring holes in other spots of the line-up. If I was the Captain and a stand up guy, which I believe Bo is, I personally wouldn't be walking away from the challenge I was given or the responsibility. As the Captain I would find that weak and uncourageous and that's not how I read Bo. If we need to give him $16 million (incl Miller) to stay here then we might as well give up, or at least stop caring at that point. However, the money ear-marked towards Miller would actually go to fixing the areas that need fixing. I'm pretty sure Bo is fairly intelligent and he can clearly see that. Miller on the team means it's almost impossible to get any better without catching lightning in a bottle. But yeah maybe you're right on Bo. I definitely get he wants to start winning. I'd rather blow it up though in that case, At least there would be something to look forward too. I've already gone through 3 dead Covid years and 8 more years of throwing time and money away is a pretty depressing thought for me.
-
I think you're being a little over dramatic. Bo is also the Captain of the team. He's only played for one team for 8 years. I think it's a risk that needs to be taken without much caution. I highly doubt he walks away from the Captaincy and quits. In addition they can negotiate them at the same time. If we're forced to take on boat anchor contracts to satisfy our players we're doomed. I'd rather rebuild in that case then self imposed sucktitude for 8 years.
-
Ha ha Calgary. Will definitely be cheering against them in the playoffs. Fair enough but we'd better get a move on and get some guys drafted there. The way I see it if you trade Miller (or Bo or Garland) you target a RD even if it turns out to be a Lundqvist who still has the outside potential to be a "#1 RD" or at least a very solid guy you can pencil into the puzzle of our defence. Then you double down on that and actually start drafting some RD (which we haven't done for some reason), especially a first and second rounder or two, hopefully at this draft. One of which could also be from a Miller trade. We're lucky in the sense that a good RD partner for Hughes can be found via trade or free agency without paying an arm and a leg. If we can then throw some options into producing young talent from within that is cost controlled it will go a long way to making our defensive future flexible and formidable. The thing is at this point we have zero prospects except Woo so trading is the only way possible to get one going now!
-
It would be a great time to take a look at him and see what his play looks like after a year of pro.
-
[PGT] Vegas Golden Knights at Vancouver Canucks | Apr. 03, 2022
Gawdzukes replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Thankfully sanity seems to be coming back to most people and we're realizing some major surgery needs to be done here to fix the team. Hopefully that makes it easy for management to make the right decisions. -
[Rumour] J.T. Miller Trade/Contract Talks
Gawdzukes replied to Podzilla's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Not worth as much as what we paid for Tofu imo. I never heard a sniff of that rumor at all. Any source? I think we take BB to arbitration and then either trade him or use him as a placeholder/see if he can improve his play. He seems pretty worthless right now unfortunately. -
[Rumour] J.T. Miller Trade/Contract Talks
Gawdzukes replied to Podzilla's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I personally wonder if anyone even made an offer. He barely adds value to a playoff team in his current form. -
You don't think Miller can be traded for a RD. Why on earth not? It's not magic beans that's young players or draft picks ... how 90% of hockey teams are built. I'm not sure I understand this argument. Are you suggesting we just quit trying to find any right D anymore or we can only sign dmen as free agents? I'm confused. Nothing new though. lol I guess we're committed to watching Miller fly around the ice for 8 years. Hmmm, maybe we can move him back to D in the last 4 years of his contract. BOOM! Succession plan. Nice. He'd actually have all the tools if he even remotely cared about keeping the puck out of his own net.
-
Thank you I was going to do this manually with 1980 methods. You are very good at these roster types of things! The D looks great but those forwards are pretty ugly. It's hard to tell which is the top and which is the bottom 6 lol. Looks like a Jim Benning special. Enough supporting forwards to build 8 teams but missing the main ingredients. Definitely don't want to give AZ another first. LW ... ouch.
-
Ha ha yes sorry that was crudely stated with much exaggeration. I did really admire Myers in our playoffs ... great tough nastiness but too many costly penalties as well. Like I said he's not bad as long as he's not your quickest and best puck handler as well. As it stands that right side just feeds the opposition the puck all game long. No wonder OEL looks so bad to people. It would be nice to have players that can do things like 1-2 passing, supporting the rush, getting in the play, shooting the puck, and threatening/stretching the opposition out. Yes it will definitely take a couple years unless we make some trades to fill that position. I definitely think they will have to bring in at least one RD in short order. Manson would be great if we can dump some cap. I think they'd be embarrassed to roll out the same configuration for an entire season.
-
agree to disagree (kind of) on that one (It's the worst I've ever seen in a long time) It's why I I want to poke my eyes out with a fork and then show the TV how to clear the puck 50 times every game. It's the whole reason we play poor 5v5 hockey, can't complete a series of passes, and toss the puck around like a hot potato in our own end for 50 minutes a game. We do need to add a top 4 D. Myers is a complimentary #2 RDman. He's so immobile, add Schenn, and Hamonic/Poolman to that it's horrendous and and it makes us super easy to play against. In that sense if we replace two guys and make them quicker and higher IQ then Myers becomes a strength. But not the way it is now our RD adds nothing to the attack and gets locked in our own end. Not to mention both Schenn, and Myers are no longer in contract next year and the following year respectively. If having to replace 3 out of 3 dmen in short order doesn't require a remake I don't know what does. Rathbone does seem way to small and defensively suspect given Hughes is already on that side. Remaking the right side with a great D might cover that too but you can only really hide one glaring deficiency or two at a time. I should say that Myers, Schenn, and even Poolman are all decent hockey players but you don't want more than one and not any as your #1 option at RD when the game is tight.
-
Bo is not gone though. We'll retain Bo possibly depending on what that looks like, Hughes, Demko, Petterson, Pods, and anyone else good of course. I think the idea is to become better in two years time, as stated by management. But yes, we have to be in a good position building, or on the cusp or we'll have a hard time re-signing Petterson. That's why you can't go full tank. I don't think Petterson will be any more impressed though if they re-sign Miller just to miss the playoffs again either and can't bring in any help. To be honest I would almost entertain a rebuild and gather assets to be super good in 6-8 years but @The Lock already touched on it. Our fanbase is super impatient (you don't even want to wait 2 years ) not to mention Petey, Hughes, and Demko, would be less than thrilled. Now JM I should also acknowledge your stance on keeping Miller. It's definitely an option that I don't entertain often (I should be more open) but if management goes that route I will support them. It would be very interesting how they tackle that so I'd grab some popcorn and sit back. I do like the 3 players you mentioned the other day. Crouse, Deslauriers, and Paul. That would definitely round out the bottom 6. I don't know if we can afford that but we would also need to find some top 6 scoring and completely remake the RD. Seems like a super tough ask. Maybe I'm just to conservative.
-
I don't really understand this at all. The first thing you would want to do in a rebuild is tank for players like Hughes, Petey, and Demko. We already have that. Why would you want to make your rebuild take twice as long and risk trying to acquire the exact same players in 4 years time? It literally doesn't make any sense to me. I think we can support the core and be better in 4 years but not if we rebuild. It'll just take longer and super risky as well.
-
[PGT] Vegas Golden Knights at Vancouver Canucks | Apr. 03, 2022
Gawdzukes replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Agreed 97%. I would have gladly taken any first and probably the second as well. However, if we dump Miller and/or Garland we're kind of running out of players. So maybe they were keeping their options open in case or hoping to sign him to a reasonable deal as a backup route. I could stomach 4-5 years at 20-25ish. Would probably be considered a deal for us given how crazy contracts are. I'm trying to give management a chance here so I did some counting and Domi, Rakell, Kulak, Copp, Lehkonen, Leddy, Braun, Fleury, Lauzon, Jarnkrok, Manson, Giroux, and Tofolli, + or - were traded for similar or better value. Is it possible we didn't even get a real offer for him? Not really a scoring forward in the bunch minus top targets Tofolli and Giroux. I think teams were relatively timid this TDL and understandably so. Either way wish we had gotten a pick for him too but hopefully we still do! -
[PGT] Vegas Golden Knights at Vancouver Canucks | Apr. 03, 2022
Gawdzukes replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Ummm beg to differ. Wings can be very helpful in sports. -
[PGT] Vegas Golden Knights at Vancouver Canucks | Apr. 03, 2022
Gawdzukes replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
What was he worth at the deadline, a 2nd maybe as a rental? I think his contract might have had anyone worried so he was a pure rental. Basically a real good Chiasson. I'm not sure I would have paid much for a guy who doesn't PK, doesn't get involved, and has 8 5v5 goals this year. Unless they needed a PP guy but most playoff teams already have 3 PP guys. Maybe a middling team will pay more in the summer with a fair contract? -
Are you some kind of motivational speaker or something? You have this weirdly over positive attitude and seem offended when people aren't 1000% over the top positive even to the point of being wrong. I'm not here to brighten your day I'm here to talk about Canucks hockey. Obviously you didn't take the time to understand that I'm just stating the facts to present the basis of my argument. I was directly responding to another quote which said, "because that path has a ton of risk with it.", yet you didn't criticize this poster for being gloomy. I was merely pointing out most seasons fail thus there is great risk to every plan. I'm sorry it doesn't jive with your expectations but man you're brining me down with this utter nonsense of criticizing the way I speak. And thanks for that gloomy bs at the end.