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. I think given the likelihood that we move Miller, we can't help but have a (small s) "step back". He's a big, impactful player. That's not something you just "replace". But that said, you hopefully sign a Kuzmenko and replace some of that scoring. You have a better defense (hopefully part of Miller's return and other moves) that both transitions the puck better/faster, creates more GF and translates to less GA. You add some depth at C ( Paul, Sturm?) and bring in some better depth/role guys with more speed, grit, ability to PK etc... I've been saying this for months... There's zero reason that with the right return and subsequent moves, that this team can't be just/near as competitive as they were this year with Miller, while also far better positioning themselves moving forward with a better cap outlook, players that better fit the core's age, more speed, grit, more prospects etc.... Even if there's a baby-step back. That's how I've always viewed the "step back" issue anyway. I've never viewed it remotely as all but writing off next season. For those that were looking for a couple year tank... well they're just not paying attention and aren't terribly realistic
  2. Management has never said anything about a tear down. Edit: And what, based on the VERY minimal changes they've made so far would have anyone assuming they're reactionary or lack "patience"?
  3. How about the camp that neither see the team as "close" or "far"? I think regardless of any Miller move or not, this young core is good enough (that with subsequent moves), they'd be about as good as the bubble playoff team they are, with Miller. What they aren't, with our without him, is a contender. Too reliant on Demko, lack size, speed, grit and PK'ers, with a right side D that's a bit of a dog's breakfast and currently no succession plan for it. There's certainly a solid base there, but it's needs an identity, support pieces and one or two key major upgrades. Is it "far"? No. It's it that "close" though? Not presently. And it's going to take some moves to get there. Staying static isn't going to cut it.
  4. Absolutely! Get the assets, get the right pieces! I've been working like 50 hours and it's Mother's Day. Maybe another time But really the reason you haven't seen a "realistic" proposal, is that none of us have that level of insight (or ability to see the future). Do you know which team is going to have a disappointing early exit from the playoffs (beyond perhaps Nashville )? Which GM'S are under pressure to make a push? Who those teams might deem expendable in order to get/fit him? Never mind that trades like this are inherently somewhat "irrational". A team selling futures, clearing cap space etc to make a push to add a guy like Miller isn't making a "rational" move. So of course you can sit there and poke "irrational" holes in it. It's not a rational move! Yet that's exactly what teams do, all the time, when they're pushing for a cup. Fence sitters don't win cups. I don't think getting two of Schneider/Kaako/Laf was ever realistic. One of them plus Chytil, 1st, maybe a secondary piece like Kravstov/Barron/Robertson etc... Sure.
  5. I'd be fine with that. And who knows, that 23 pick could end up higher than expected.... Exactly. It's about getting the right pieces. Not "winning the trade" I don't think it will be difficult. There's going to be more than a few teams seriously interested. The hard part is getting those "right pieces" back.
  6. Trading Miller doesn't necessarily equate to a step backward with the right return and subsequent moves. There's zero reason this team can't be near/just as competitive next year AND with a better long term outlook, less shaky cap situation, more youth etc. Can't make an omelette....
  7. It's not about "winning" the trade. It's about building a contending team. Rutherford has said as much himself. That said, while I like Lyssel and Swayman, I assume and hope we can do better personally.
  8. Something around Debrusk for cap, Lyssel, Swayman... Maybe Harrison and obviously their 1st... I mean I'd hope someone would outbid that as it's somewhat underwhelming (mostly no obvious "key" piece...I mean Lyssel and Swayman are decent but...), but it's not horrible either.
  9. And they probably aren't (overly). Again, I was going off the other poster saying they were tight on cap. But teams don't like to overpay players either. Particularly teams looking to contend. And no, some teams can afford to pay more short term to acquire a player and could theoretically use their cap space as leverage, like Carolina did (though the Canucks are clearly not there yet). The Islanders may have cap space now but they also need some pretty sizeable improvements at F, guys with pending raises the next couple years (including Barzal) and urgency to make hay. And again, I'm merely suggesting it as a possible trade leverage tactic. I'm not suggesting it would be a successful offer sheet (or that we actually even make the offer sheet). The two are not exclusive.
  10. And teams love paying more for their players than market value?
  11. Almost like some of us have been saying that for months...
  12. Doubt the Avs are losing in the first round Still, anything short of the final is likely a "disappointment" for them.
  13. We have the draft picks. And presumably, we'd have made other moves already. Miller and Myers out for example, and we likely have cap space You're still missing the point. It's a predatory offer sheet (or at least the threat of one). What they "prioritize" doesn't really matter. They have to respond to the action (or even the threat of potential action) regardless. I doubt he does too. Again, it's simply a potential negotiation lever. It's like none of you know how these works or how the threat of them is frequently used as trade negotiation leverage (even if no actual offer sheet is actually made) Same goes for Hague as others have mentioned (and yes, he's likely more attainable). You don't actually need to make the offer sheet to get the player (or even a different player)..
  14. Sure, and then we offer sheet him and they have to pay him more than they'd like... And they still need help on F as a returning, more expensive Dobson doesn't actually improve them.
  15. Weird, thought they were tighter. Either way, they probably don't want to have to pay him more than they have to/ideal, as they do need improvements at F, and the cap to do so.
  16. I was surprised they and the Avs both didn't do more.
  17. Perhaps it's part of the trade negotiations in a potential Miller move...? The threat of an offer sheet can be just as good (better?) than an actual successful offer sheet, in trade negotiation. Miller for Dobson or we'll offer sheet him and &^@# your already tight cap situation scenario...
×
×
  • Create New...