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

aGENT

Members
  • Posts

    52,033
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    68

aGENT last won the day on July 9 2022

aGENT had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About aGENT

  • Birthday August 19

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

27,639 profile views

aGENT's Achievements

Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Canucks Hall-of-Famer (14/14)

45.7k

Reputation

  1. That's always been what I've assumed any pre-TDL trade would look like. We move Myers for a guy that shaves a couple mil and maybe adds some size/speed/grit elsewhere in the lineup. That or retaining. Not sure why anyone would think we'd be clearing the entire $6m...that's just silly talk. Even at the TDL, we're likely retaining $1m-$3m (and perhaps involving a 3rd team to retain).
  2. I mean if you collect enough "Studnickas", hopefully one of them turns in to something. But that player is not likely going to replace an aging, declining Miller in 3-4+ years. Raty might (or at least be a decent 2nd/3rd line "tandem" with a declining Miller).
  3. Even at 5 or maybe even 6 years, Willander improving and on an ELC/bridge deal will cover any eventual, possible inefficiencies on Pesce.
  4. Not sure what my post you quoted has to do with that, but sure....
  5. *As a means of moving him to a bottom team he may not have on his possible trade destinations. Waiving him to Abby doesn't accomplish much.
  6. It's a shame ARZ reportedly wants to start competing this season. For a cool $1m of actual salary, we could have taken say Crouse and his $17.2m ($4.3x4) in salary back, saving that penny-pinching org over $16m in cash commitment. Waiving him only clears ~$1.1m of his cap. Buying him out (which we already missed) would actually cost us MORE cap once you factor in his replacement. Every player playing in the NHL (and probably a few hundred who aren't) are "ok" by default. Myers could be a decent, complementary 2nd pair, offensive leaning D with size/intangibles, good leadership etc who occasionally brain farts and needs a good defensive D to cover him (the exact type of D who would also pair with Hughes, OEL, Schmidt etc that we've coincidentally been lacking). I'm not suggesting that properly partnered/roled and puck supported that he'd be better than Hughes, I'm saying that he'd more often than not be put in position to make a net positive difference to the lineup. Something he (nor a bunch of other Canucks in the past 5+ years) have been put in position to do.
  7. And Garland should be an easier move, with cap going up.
  8. Sure we can. May require filling out some of the bottom of the lineup with kids/league min UFA's, but that's what good teams do. And with Hughes-Pesce as our top pair, suddenly we'd look like a solid destination for good UFA vets looking to win, and willing to sign cheap to do so.
  9. If the acquisition cost is corresponding lower...maybe? Playing with Hughes for part of the year would be a hell of a sales pitch...
  10. OK. Who do you propose we target for this young, "developing 3C"?
  11. You're both welcome to disagree...but you'd be wrong In no way am I suggesting Myers is amaze-balls...but appropriately partnered, in an appropriate role, with proper systems and puck support he would look "ok" to decent (vs the train wreck/chaos giraffe we got most of the time). Schmidt was no different. Looked good in VGK, lost here and fine in WPG. Gudbranson was fine properly partnered/role in CAL as well. Good management puts players in position to succeed (even if they're not all stars/amaze-balls). We utterly failed at that the vast majority of Myers time here (short of his brief time playing opposite Edler). And Myers was not alone there. It's a HUGE element, vast swaths of CDC (and apparently previous management) overlook. Ayyup.
  12. Nobody is trading us a developing 2C for Beau or Myers.
×
×
  • Create New...