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. Congrats @Dak Prescott, my Cats $&!# the bed instead of using the litter box and it was too much overcome.
  2. I prefer the potential package from PIT. Something around Marino, Blomqvist, Poulind and their 1st. Perhaps Kapanen if we send a second piece. According to...?
  3. I have no idea what's happening with that though. If it's sorted then maybe. But otherwise, agreed. Maybe if we retained on Myers to even the dollars... Miller, Myers $1m retained for Marino, Kapenen, Blomqvist and their 1st....?
  4. Would be thrilled if it did but (assuming he's healthy), Poolman is probably a better fit making the cap dollars work. Almost even dollars in/out. Or they could just target a UFA as well.
  5. There's loads of teams that will be interested in Miller outside of the Rangers. Rangers being out doesn't remotely change the plan or the line in the sand we should have on any potential extension. IMO, it's still FAR more likely he's moved than extended. Any of BOS, CAL (depending on what happens with their UFA's), COL, FLA, LAK, NSH, NYI, PHI, PIT, TBL, WAS and TOR should easily have some level of interest. Personally, I think PIT may be most likely. Something around Marino, Blomqvist, Poulin and their 1st. Maybe swapping Poolman and Kapanen as well.
  6. There's a million "decision points" every year. All of them inform your plan, they don't dictate it. Yeah, they're really growing in me as an option for Miller and Miller would be a GREAT fit there. My Spidey senses are tingling Nevermind the obvious management connections.
  7. I doubt Tampa makes him available personally. We might have to settle for Marino's "young Tanev" instead
  8. Then Petey is only under contract for 2 more years and club control one after that. Is THAT our window? Seems a bit silly (and hence why I don't agree the same logic applies to Demko). Yup, between Demko, Clark and Sandford, I'm not particularly worried. Another reason I'm interested in a potential deal with PIT to get Marino and Blomqvist+ back. Marino solves part of our top 4 RHD issue moving forward. Blomqvist gives us the up and coming, high level goalie prospect.
  9. Oh absolutely, there needs to be other pieces lined up! I wouldn't want us to move Myers in a vacuum. Something like a Miller/Garland/Boeser for Marino (or similar) trade and Lyubushkin or Manson as a UFA. Then you have something like: Hughes, Marino OEL, Lyubushkin And make up the bottom 4 with some mix of Rathbone, Poolman, Schenn, Dermott and Burroughs. A more complementary, better defensively D core, all while getting younger, cheaper and faster. And I don't even think Myers is overpaid, or not by much if he is. He's just an ill fit with the other players in our top 4. His problem is fit, not ability or contract IMO.
  10. I see the angle your coming from... Don't really agree, but get where you're coming from.
  11. It's similar in that he has a clear line in the sand for the contract. Having the added leverage of an upcoming replacement is certainly different, yes. But the type of sensible and pragmatic planning I hope to see moving forward.
  12. Oh I'm fine with the "fit" and OEL's cap hit. Honestly don't understand why people want to move him out. D tend to play at a high level until 34, with a slower decline than forwards. At worst (barring unforeseen injuries etc), he's got like one, maybe two, mildly inefficient years at the end where we're overpaying him a mil +/- Him and Hughes are our two best D, I have zero desire to move either. Myers on the other hand, who's a perfectly fine 2nd pair D but simply an ill fit, I can see being moved.
  13. But we should be doing that regardless of what may or may not happen with Demko in 4 years. If nothing else, it increases your negotiation leverage on Demko's extension while giving you a saleable asset. It allows you to "Miller" the negotiations (set a firm price, or move him for other assets). Still don't see how Demko's current contract remotely constitutes "our window", as was the discussion.
  14. So why are we worrying about it...?
  15. Why? Is Tampa not competitive still while paying their goalie a butt load more than Demko is making? Why can't we still be competitive after giving Demko a raise as well? Otherwise we have 4 years to draft and develop, or trade for, a potential replacement/extension leverage (which I agree should be/likely is in the plans). Demko's contract does not dictate our window, and it's one of the lowest things on my concern-o-meter in regards to organizational needs.
  16. There no guarantees in anything. I think as long as they see forward progress and a steady hand at the helm, pointing everyone in the right direction, we shouldn't have much trouble extending the guys we want to keep.
  17. The only way I take Kapanen is if they are taking back a guy like Poolman or Dickenson. If he's part of a cap in/cap out scenario with additional "hockey trade" bodies going back or forth, he's a fine "body" to take a chance on, with some potential and otherwise a useful baseline. He's not however, a piece I build the Miller trade on. Miller + Poolman/Dickenson for Marino, Blomqvist, Poulin and 1st... Sure.
  18. No, that's not my point. The CURRENT window has Demko under contract and Petey and Hughes entering their primes. That CURRENT window will still be open when Demko's CURRENT deal expires. There's zero reason we can't be competitive during his contract, or after it. I don't remotely subscribe to Demko's contact remotely dictating our contention window.
  19. By building a better, more cohesive team. Filling our glaring holes at RD and 3C, and with adding more speed, grit etc throughout the lineup and finding little efficiencies. Yes, we likely take a hit on our top 6F scoring by moving Miller. But if we get a GOOD 3C, maybe it frees up Horvat for a few more points/goals. A better more cohesive defensive unit maybe gets us a few more points/goals. Maybe we land Kuzmenko to replace a bit of that offense. Podkolzin continuing to improve etc, etc. Maybe that better defense, 2 way 3C, added speed and grit etc also mean less goals against, improving our goal differential that way as well. That's how.
  20. I also wouldn't hate something along the lines of Miller to PIT for Marino, Blomqvist, Poulin and their 1st. Blomqvist can play in Abby for a couple years, backup for a couple years and then we can make a call on which goalie to keep, all while adding leverage to getting a team friendly deal from Thatcher. Trade the other guy for assets.
  21. Again, where did I say we don't need Demko/a good goalie? We already have Demko, under contract, for the majority of Petey/Hughes peaks. Why can we apparently only contend with Demko on his current deal? He's also said he'd like to build a team less reliant on the goalie standing on his head to win games.
  22. Where in my post does it say I don't think Demko is good or that we wouldn't need a good goalie if it's not Demko? FWIW, I think Petey can be about as good as Aho +/- and Hughes about as good as Makar +/-. We need to flesh out/more cohesively build the team around them (and Demko).
  23. I'm not sure you do understand my take. I agree you need a good goalie. I agree Demko is one. Nothing to do with sample sizes. I don't agree that we can only be competitive with him on his current deal. Either he can be extended at a higher rate and we can remain competitive, just liked Tampa has with Vasilevskiy, or we have both time and staff in place to find an alternative high level goalie and develop him... and remain competitive. There's zero reason we can only be competitive under his current deal.
×
×
  • Create New...