-
Posts
52,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
68
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by aGENT
-
[Rumour] J.T. Miller Trade/Contract Talks
aGENT replied to Podzilla's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
If they move Pastrnak, they're almost certainly rebuilding. And they'd likely be selling off guys like McAvoy as well if that's the case. They're at a bit of a cross roads. They can probably make some moves and remain a playoff team (not a likely contender) for a few more years (if the moves work out). But they've also got a LOT of key guys starting the season on IR next year. Even with the right moves and getting those guys back part way through the season, they're behind the eight ball to actually make the playoffs next year. So there goes one of their +/-2-3 years of possibly remaining somewhat relevant... I could see why they're contemplating simply ripping the rebuild "band-aid" off. -
No he's not a shut down guy, he's basically a poor man's (and RH'd) OEL. IMO, when we got OEL, it (should have) spelled the end of Myers time here. Good enough player, but if he doesn't mesh with either of your two, better top 4 D... You can't be paying him $6m to play third pair/not play in your top 4. Good player "in a vacuum" or not. It may happen that way depending on the level of interest this summer. But IMO, after a decent season, with only two years of term remaining... now may be the best time to move him. Not only is his value high, league wide demand evidently high etc, but it also let's the Canucks start moving forward. If you want Manson, it's this summer or likely not at all as he's UFA. As much as I'd love him, I think he's going to be in huge demand and cost too much, have better options, or both. My "under the radar" alternative would be Lyubushkin. Less of a fighter but good skating, solid D game and physical. I also hope we see something like Miller to PIT for Marino+ (or similar). Marino plays a lot like a young Tanev and would fit well IMO. Hughes, Marino OEL, Lyubushkin Rathbone, Schenn Dermott, Burroughs (Poolman on IR?) Poolman being moveable likely depends a lot on his health. That said, we can do worse than Schenn/Poolman tag teaming that 3RD slot. Same with Dermott. He's cheap enough that him as a 6/7 guy to swap in for Rathbone (who will likely need the rest and or watch from the press box throughout the year, plus injuries etc) is fine.
-
That's not what in posted. I said Miller to PIT for Marino. Myers would be a seperate move (though depending on what happens with extending Letang, they could certainly have interest as well).
-
Yeah imagine if we'd just given Edler Hamonic's $3m lol. Could have had: Hughes, OEL Edler, Myers ...as our top 4. Just a bit better and yes, our PK likely isn't as atrocious. Not even sure it's that. I think he genuinely struggled to put cohesive pieces together. Individually, most of the guys he brought in were good enough players (in their given roles), on their own, "in a vacuum". But NHL teams aren't a vacuum. You have pairings and lines and chemistry and skill sets to mesh to create a greater, cohesive "team". Gudbranson is probably one of the earlier examples in that he brought him in but then didn't follow that up by bringing in pieces that would complement him. We've seen Gudbranson have success, in a reasonable, complimentary role, with intangibles both before in Florida, and recently in Calgary. Those teams had, or brought, in players to complement him, and put him in a position and role to succeed. Myers is probably our latest example. Perfectly fine player but he doesn't fit with either of our other two top 4 guys. Benning had a square peg, round hole issue. Not a kid in a candy store issue IMO.
-
I think Pittsburgh would happily make that swap.
-
Trade Miller for Marino or similar, sign a guy like Lyubushkin. Hughes, Marino OEL, Lyubushkin Rathbone, Schenn Dermott, Burroughs (Poolman on IR) Younger, faster and cheaper as well as more cohesive.
-
I think they'd still retain him for next year given his contract, if they're going for it (they should be). Solid, cheap, top 4 capable D on your 3rd pair. Sounds like EXACTLY what a contending team would keep.
-
I sure wouldn't hate Mayfield, even if I don't think he's a long term solution to the "Hughes partner" conundrum. Doubt they want to give him up with one year left on a super efficient, cheap deal though.
-
https://canucksarmy.com/2022/06/07/the-trade-market-for-canucks-d-tyler-myers-might-be-14-teams-bigger-than-we-thought/
-
Speaking of our D... https://canucksarmy.com/2022/06/07/the-trade-market-for-canucks-d-tyler-myers-might-be-14-teams-bigger-than-we-thought/
-
Absolutely. That's not even a bad deal for Dobson lol
-
Possible the bridge is burnt. Possible they don't think he has what it takes. Possible they sign him next week. Be great if someone in our crack media stayed on top of these things though...
-
They also have Mayfield. And Dobson is an RFA.
-
That D didn't really need a lot of "filling out "
-
Pretty sure they match (and IIRC have more cap space than we do). Look, I'd LOVE to add Dobson, it's just not very likely, unless they're way more desperate to upgrade their F's than they likely are.
-
[Rumour] Bo Horvat Trade/Contract Talks
aGENT replied to HOFsedins's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
You spell Miller funny. That said, the NYR ship has likely sailed regardless. -
Could have done a better job putting word out to Larson before SEA signed him. Could have signed Savard. Could have signed Goligoski (plays both sides) Hell, we could have just kept it simple and just extended Edler and moved one of Hughes/OEL to the right. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure an actual management group could probably have sorted out more and/or potentially better options. And with a better top 4, you don't "need" a $2.5m 3rd pair guy. You can rely on lower dollar guys like Schenn to come in and play 10'ish sheltered minutes a night, while sheltering a rookie. Sorry, "cornering the market on bottom pair D" wasn't, and isn't, the way to go. In no way, shape or form should we have signed both Hamonic AND Poolman. If you want to argue it shouldn't have been Hamonic instead, I've got all sorts of time for ya. But if you're going to continue to claim we needed both, I'll continue pointing out how dumb and wasteful it was.
-
Really? Hamonic $3m + Poolman $2.5m = Top 4 D man. Zero forwards need moving. No it didn't make sense at the time. It would have made sense if we'd never extended Hamonic (oh how I wish!).
-
How far are we from being a playoff contender?
aGENT replied to PetterssonOrPeterson's topic in Canucks Talk
I get the odds. That wasn't really the point. -
We largely did have neither. Including when we played better post-coach change. Clearly the two combined to making a huge difference to our fortunes And again, I'm not throwing shade at Poolman, at all. Perfectly decent, bottom pair D. I'm throwing shade at Benning for signing him when he already had Hamonic. And if he signed him because he knew Hamonic was going to be MIA, WTF reason did he sign Hamonic?!?! All those resources, cap space and term, tied up in redundant, bottom pair D. THAT is the issue.
-
[Signing] Canucks sign Nils Aman
aGENT replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Yup, THESE are exactly the type of guys you want filling out your AHL lineup with (besides your prospects), instead of "established AHL'ers". Guys who still may still develop in to cheap, depth/role NHL players. Like I said last page, this is exactly the types of guys our management would sign in PIT, to do just that. -
Yup, having both surely saved our season last year....
-
Point being, we didn't need both. Poolman would have been a fine signing if we'd never extended Hamonic, or had traded him. But nope, we doubled down on a redundant guy that didn't actually address any pressing roster issues.
-
[Signing] Canucks sign Nils Aman
aGENT replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
This is the sort of guy they'd turn in to contributing, role players in PIT... *fingers crossed* -
Sorry, which one is "fringe"? Is it the guy we had playing on our top pair with Hughes? The guy we had playing largely with OEL as our matchup pair? Or the guy we sent to Ottawa because we had redundant bottom pair D (and he was also an ill fit)? We didn't need ANOTHER, redundant, bottom pair D man. Full stop.