wallstreetamigo

I don’t think we actually have many garbage players on the roster. We have a lot of inflated contracts for them though which is what kills their value. I hope the Canucks try something different than the usual get in the playoffs and anything can happen approach to asset management. Get in the playoffs but manage assets effectively at the TDL.

Maybe. But unfortunately it will take a couple of forces moves (and expensive ones most likely) to repair the cap situation long term.

It would likely take a winger and picks to get back that quality D. The problem is the Canucks have not really ever had any appetite to trade roster players at the deadline for any reason if there is even a sliver of hope for the playoffs (which the loser point guarantees for almost every team now at the TDL).

It doesn’t really alter the plans. It accelerates the time frame to get those plans completed though. Unless wasting the early years of that extension is ok with Canucks brads which I doubt it is. Pearson is exactly the type of player/contract that is almost unmoveable right now for anything of value. Even if he didn’t have a ntc.

We have the assets to acquire one. We just won’t like the price paid. I agree that drafting D in earlier rounds should have been a much higher priority than wingers especially.

The Miller extension essentially stated that this year is their year to make changes and after this one the window needs to be firmly open. I am not a big believer in the “make the playoffs and anything can happen” approach. It’s simply not at all true or reliable. Honestly will not be surprised if Hoglander is traded this year. I hope not as I think long term he has a place but I just think he might be moved.

This is exactly what my “opposition” (if you can call it that) to the Miller extension was. I think you are right that some of the depth will need to go. Potentially Hoglander as well. Signing Miller is ok but it firmly shortens the time frame to fix the D which undoubtedly means it will cost more to do. Now they have to though imo.

This. I keep seeing people suggest Boeser or Garland gets it done. I highly doubt either does. RHD especially are just insanely valued but any top quality D would take more than a winger. I would actually be willing to trade Boeser/Garland and a high pick (even possibly a 1st) for the right top pairing quality RHD especially now that they signed Miller and declared their window open now.

I agree here. He has shown he has work to do but could realistically be a decent nhl dman as soon as this year or next.

Same. Worth a shot but only if cheap.

I was very glad the Canucks didn’t accept a deal where this was the centrepiece rhd prospect coming back our way. There is potential there but he really doesn’t check the boxes we really need.

I probably watched at least 10 Canucks games where Garland was unnoticeable so your admittedly small sample size of watching CBJ isn’t a definitive about the player. It really suggests maybe you don’t definitively know which is better or how comparable they might be (for the record, I think Garland is slightly better as a player, not significantly though).

Not sure if this is referencing my comment about Garland. I wasn’t advocating trading him or not (don’t really care if we do or don’t tbh). I was using him as an example of what is clearly a current condition around the league where mid 6 forwards with 5 mil type contracts with term are not being moved for good returns.

That is great. I will once again (for the millionth time on cdc) rail against cherry picking plus minus to try to argue anything about an individual player. It is at best a team stat and pretty much useless as a stand alone indicator of individual performance. Having said that, my point is that in the current environment they are pretty comparable players contract and performance wise. So to suggest Garland would generate some premium trade return right now is just not realistic based on what is happening league wide.

The Rangers wouldn’t move Schneider as part of a Miller return. Zero chance they trade him for Garland even if they could afford the cap. Sorry to say but Garland is super overrated on cdc. Your comment about the complexity of making a trade actually supports the points I was making that people are disagreeing with.

If a substantial return was available Garland would probably already be gone. It’s just not available right now for tier 2/3 wingers. Other teams know the Canucks want to shed cap. Look at what Bjorkstrand got traded for. He is a pretty good player much like Garland who I think actually has less years left in his contract. Cap space is quite literally a ton more valuable (and thus costly to those looking for it) right now than anything else in terms of trade value.

Then why havent many cap players been able to be moved this offseason without attaching assets or taking minimal to no return back? Or dollar in, dollar out player for player deals? The dynamics of the cap situation around the league suggest that good players like Garland are being traded for garbage returns not premium assets. No one is taking those kind of cap hit players unless they are dirt cheap or assets are attached. That’s just the reality. Just because Benning was desperate and stupid enough to trade premium assets for Garland and OEL doesn’t mean smart GM’s in the current environment will. Horvat is our shutdown center out of necessity. I didn’t say he wasn’t our actual shutdown center. I said he isn’t actually A shutdown type center as in he not very good at it other than winning faceoffs. Our PK was garbage and historically so. Not sure if not being the worst player on it makes your case that Horvat is a defensive guru. You SEVERELY cherry picked stats there btw.

The most overused and overrated justification for crap contracts is paying for “veteran leadership”. Smart teams pay for talent. After Jim Benning you would think everyone here could at least agree on the above.

Exactly. Last year scoring was up. 100 point players are not that common usually.

My point is paying for future potential of a clear top young player is just a different kind of bet than paying for past performance of a veteran UFA guy. No one can say this is a gross overpayment while arguing Miller’s deal is a great deal. Because essentially both are betting on limited statistical supporting data. Miller was nowhere near a 99 point player his entire career. And he may be again he may not. It’s still not a certainty.

WADR: Gagner and Stutzle are also completely different players and Stutzle brings more than just offensive ability and has more overall potential than Gagner ever had. Jonathan Cheechoo got 50 goals. Under your logic doesn’t that mean it should have been easy for him to get 50 every year after?

A whopping 5 of the 30 forwards with an 8-10 mil cap hit got 100 points last year. You can’t really say it’s a gross overpayment until you see what he does during the course of the contract. It’s also not all about points. It’s just a different kind of cap certainty bet is all. Stutzle has work to do but honestly watch him play then try to tell me this is a terrible bet for Ottawa to make.

If I was a betting man even if we include Millers 99 point season and Stutzle’s 58 point season, I would bet good money that Stutzle significantly outperforms Miller in points over the life of those contracts.

Not sure why people are trying to compare these two players really. No one knows what will happen and each represents a completely different risk/reward profile. Miller had a lot of years of not getting 99 points before getting there (with a huge number of secondary assists and pp points btw if you really dig into it). Not saying he isn’t a great player right now but if you look at Millers first few seasons vs Stutzle’s, Stutzle kicks his ass in point production and it’s not particularly close. So who knows what Stutzle can become? But it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Ottawa is simply projecting that Stutzle as a 20 year old can continue to improve for 8 years. And given the new linemates he has now that’s not a terrible assumption to make. Vancouver is betting Miller can be a 100 point guy for the foreseeable future. Not a bad risk to take but more risky for sure.

Or Miller could revert to a 60 point guy next season and Stutzle could break out with 100 points. Both contracts are essentially risks. I know for me I would rather give this contract to a 21 year old than a 29 year old. Especially if I am in a market that has seen a lot of good players itching to bolt at first opportunity and has struggled to sign impact UFA players. For a lot of teams this contract would be way more risky than it is for Ottawa.