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

aGENT

Members
  • Posts

    52,033
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    68

Everything posted by aGENT

  1. IMO other than just signing the QO, the thing that makes the most sense is to give him a front loaded, bonus heavy (upfront money, lower taxes) deal at something in the mid- high $6m range for 3'ish years. With smart money management, that can easily work out to about the same (or even more) take home the first year, as his QO. He gets a few years of security, a chance to regain his game and still earn a bigger payday in a few years.
  2. I believe there's been talk of looking at playing him there this year FWIW. But again, if we can find some solid defensive D to play with both Hughes and OEL (and run Schenn in that role on the 3rd pair). We'd be able to roll OEL and Hughes out as basically 2 first pairs for near 25 minutes each. That's INVALUABLE. And not having to cover for Myers all game (and in fact having someone cover for him) free him up to be more creative 5v5. Then look at putting both of them on the PP1 IMO. OEL has a far better shot and is a good PPQB himself. Let Hughes play the right (better shot) and rover 4th "forward". Imagine how hard it would be defending Hughes buzzing around the entire zone with Horvat in front, and Pettersson, OEL and Boeser hammering their elite shots at the net as Hughes sets them up.
  3. Run Hughes like the 4th F/Rover. Problem solved.
  4. You spell Myers funny. Miller's gone bro. Noting wrong with: Horvat Boeser, Pettersson OEL Hughes ...on the PP
  5. Exactly! And imagine if we can free him up a bit by adding better defensive D around him and/or putting him with QH on the PP! I honestly can't fathom why so many people want to wish away an underpaid, #1D?! Wreaks of baby/bathwater thinking. Fix the roster around our really good players!
  6. I might need to update my sig... "Respect your OEL's" doesn't quite have the same ring to it though
  7. He's not really playing a "lesser role" though. He was our key matchup guy and made Myers look almost like a first pair D some nights. He was arguably one of our better and more important players last year because he's a really, REALLY good defensemen. He was forced to play hard matchup minutes because we lacked better options. Some actual defensive D around him and opposite him and we free him up to create again and have the luxury of having basically two first pairs. Yes please!
  8. He's honestly not even remotely overpaid. The guy's still a #1D in a world where first pair D are making between $8-$12m AAV. We're basically paying him as a bottom of the barrel 1st pair/high end 2nd pair D and people still complain New management needs to do a TONNE better at actually building a cohesive D core around Hughes and him, and we'll more than get our moneys worth.
  9. Hey man, we totally agree he's being under utilized here. He hasn't remotely been put in a position to succeed/get the most out of him That's a MAJOR problem. One I hope to see rectified sooner than later (I've been harping on about it for MONTHS). But once again, that's a management problem, not an OEL (or his contract) problem. They need to build a better, more cohesive D core around Hughes and OEL. We don't need to ditch OEL. That's bass -ackwards. The guy is a stud. Keep the stud, do a better job supporting him.
  10. I'd make that OEL/Garland trade again today. Like not even a question. I'd also be moving Miller regardless of that trade (assuming we can't sign him to a 5 year x low $8-something deal). Again, that's a roster construction/management issue, not an OEL/contract issue The ability to fill ~50 out of 60 minutes of a game, with two, legit first pair D is INVALUABLE. Now we're just need to build a proper D core around them.
  11. These contracts get negotiated around total dollars, not AAV. The players could give a rats arse what their AAV is. They want total dollars, bonus structures etc. The Canucks are likely around $50m and the Miller camp is likely asking closer to $65 total. Ergo...Bridge to far, he's getting moved.
  12. Yup, use the threat of an offer sheet for leverage, sure... But making a trade is a better route.
  13. Yup if wager there's at LEAST a $10-15m gap. That's not something that's getting bridged by negotiation.
  14. This is not a normal trade situation. Look at history.
  15. Yup... While I'm certainly not going to complain if we unearth the next Lidstrom or Pronger to play opposite him for the next decade, something like a younger Tanev would be just fine as a "next best". Not just third pairing, I'd hope we could find some of those guys to play opposite Hughes and OEL too. Heck OEL could shift right and probably make a damn fine 2nd pairing with Hague too. Then run with Rathbone and Schenn on the 3rd pair. Otherwise I hope we're targeting guys like Marino, Lyubushkin, Carlo etc. To play with them as well.
  16. In that scenario, I'd probably have shifted one of Hughes/OEL to the right. Hughes, OEL Edler, Myers Dermott, Schenn Either way, yes. Myers is an ill fit with our top 4 LD who aren't going anywhere (nor should they, as they're both superior players) and he needs replacing in two years anyway as you said. Even top defensive D tend to max out at around $4.5m. So if we could get one of those via trade, free agency etc, and use that $1.5m+ cap savings elsewhere...
  17. He'd be fine paying with at lefty like McNabb that can cover for his offensive forays and occasional lapses in judgement. That would actually likely be a very physically dominating 2nd pairing to play against. No fun for the opposition. We don't have a McNabb on our roster however. Edit: Edler would have made a good partner as well in his later years here.
  18. We're taking about PP. Going to be hard for Miller to be on pp1, from another team, sorry bruh.
  19. Yeah nothing wrong with... Horvat Boeser, Pettersson Hughes, OEL Wouldn't be awful at all.
  20. OEL, because of his NMC is "impossible" to trade. Without that, we'd have very little issue finding a taker IMO. Especially to any "have" clubs with money and a need for a top pair LD.
  21. Because Benning was ok at acquiring decent individual talent, but he evidently sucked at putting a cohesive d core, team, pairings etc together. And having Hughes and OEL isn't a problem. Being able to put those two guys out there for ~25 minutes each of a 60 minute game is RIDICULOUSLY valuable. With a properly constructed D core, we don't have him as a "2nd pair" D, we have him as a 2nd, 1st pair D, so that we can basically roll 2 first pairs for 5/6ths of a game. That's not the "problem" that needs fixing. The problem that needs fixing is finding appropriate partners for Hughes and OEL so we can do that to it's greatest effect and get the most out of our, by far, two best defensemen. Right now, the way our D is structured, we're limiting both of them and not putting them in the best positions to succeed. That's a Benning (and now Rutherford/Allvin) problem, not an OEL problem.
  22. Management will have a far better feel for how much is/isn't "too cute", than any of us. I suspect it won't be close to "Rathbone + Hoglander" though. Would LOVE to land both Roy and Hague though.
  23. I'm guessing the main reason we're unlikely to move Brock is that given his down year and RFA qualification amount, the returns would be underwhelming. Both Brock and the Canucks are likely best off with a short term bridge deal or just dealing with his QO for one year and seeing where he's at after a hopefully more representative season (without the cloud of his father passing away all year, hanging over him). Hopefully they can come to agreement on something like a 3 year by $6-something deal (with a lot of upfront, bonus money to make it worth his while) that makes sense for both sides. Then he's either extendable in a couple years if he's shown to be worth it, or moveable for an actual return. Brock get's some security a bunch of lower tax, upfront cash and the ability to prove himself and cash in BIG still in a few years.
  24. You're looking at too narrow of parameters, ignoring the teams they played on or what situations they were in. OEL is capable of being a 40+ point D. Now he probably won't hit that here with Hughes eating up the prime PP minutes ahead of him but he's capable if needed (a Hughes injury?). And he's probably easily capable of 30+, behind Hughes, if not babysitting Myers and with a properly structured D core around him (some defensive D to both support him, play more of the match up role he was tasked with, eat some PK minutes etc). And yes, a 30+, first pair capable, elite D is worth $7m easily in todays market. Top pair D in the league are making between $8-$12m per year in their UFA years. He's basically being paid like a bottom rung first pair/high end 2nd pair D.
×
×
  • Create New...