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. It was widely reported that management was gauging the trade value of basically the entire roster through this season. Why would OEL be any different? Not much value in that tidbit there, sorry MLL.
  2. Pretty sure I read something like this months and months ago somewhere.... Wonder who that poster was....
  3. I'm not even sure we'd need to include our 15th. Or at the very least, should be getting some extra pieces back if we do. Boeser + 15 for Zacha, 5th and maybe try and squeeze Bahl... I'd definitely consider that. End up with Zacha, Jiricek and Bahl.... Yup that might be ok.
  4. I mean I'd happily take Forsberg... Beyond that, we shouldn't be spending money on major UFA's anyway IMO. Guys like Lyubushkin, Paul, Sturm, Tierney etc. Sure.
  5. This. I honestly don't get why this is such a hot button topic. The series of events is pretty straight forward. Why all that drama? People baffle me.
  6. Yup, I'd happily move either Garland (sounds like Boeser is staying) or, assuming the Miller negotiations go as expected, Miller for that pick (in a package) to grab Jiricek. Bonus points for getting some of Zacha, Bahl, Holtz (if it's Miller) etc . The rest of you yahoos, we're not trading Hughes.
  7. I'd love to get Bahl but Rathbone and Hoglander both have more trade value than him, alone IMO. Never mind both of them.
  8. I'd like us to be a "Tampa". YMMV
  9. Because you make subsequent moves. Because the team (hopefully) has a more cohesive identity and the players to support it. Because we have a better defense more able to transition the puck and support offense creation and reduce goals against etc, etc... And as Provost pointed out, it's as much (more) as doing what's right long term for the team as it is "not taking a step back". But there's zero reason this team can't be just/near as competitive after a Miller trade, with the right return and subsequent moves.
  10. Honestly, on a good team, Schenn should be a 7th D and only play with injuries or subbing in against bigger/tougher teams.
  11. I actually didn't think they'd want to give up Faksa. I'd certainly consider him though, as you mentioned. Dellandrea projects more as a middle 6 player, which is why I think he'd be attainable. Not like I suggested Stankoven And contrary to popular belief, I think 2 years left Myers, has some actual value.
  12. I want to get rid him him because he's a bit of a square peg in our lineup. Doesn't really fit with Hughes or OEL and that's a decent cap hit to not have playing (fitting) in your top 4. Otherwise I think he's actually undervalued on here by many and not nearly the anchor many make him out as. I also think he's got real trade value with only 2 years left on his manageable $6m deal. Dallas has Klingberg expiring (and Myers is from Texas), Washington has Schultz expiring and Pittsburgh has Letang expiring. All teams in their last gasps that might have interest in a big, good skating, 2 way RHD with only 2 years of term left to replace guys that might potentially walk. Are we going to get a top prospect and a first? Probably not. But maybe a guy like Ty Dellandrea from Dallas and a 2nd or 3rd? While clearing cap. I think you only move Myers if you have something in the works moving say Garland (or Boeser, though I think he's staying) for a D. Something along the lines of the rumoured Boeser-Marino trade. Get a guy like Marino and it makes it a lot easier to move Myers, while also shaving cap. I'd happily take Bear or Lyubushkin as UFA's personally.
  13. It's been clear for months. There's numbers that make sense for the team to retain him and there's numbers that make sense to move him. Miller's recent comments give me a bit more hope a reasonable extension can be agreed upon but that's only a bit more hope than the almost none I had before. It's still unlikely he gives us the +/- $5-15m discount we'd require, too pay more taxes and stay here. Gordie bless him if he does though. Happily, it still sounds like management haven't lost their minds and have a pretty firm line in the sand there.
  14. Actually the "mythology" (fact) is that players generally decline a bit around 32 and a LOT around 34 +/-. And Stamkos has a bit more of a high level track record than Miller (disregarding injuries).... But I digress.. It's this sort of "half truth" spin that really grinds my gears. It's sort of close to truth and making salient points. But it's not actually.
  15. While we're at it, we can fire Rutherford and Allvin and bring back Iron Mike too
  16. I think you missed the even worse, Kane suggestion
  17. I'm guessing a lot of it was giving kids more ice time and him going from more of a 2nd line 2 way role to a 3rd line match up/sheltering role. I'd happily take any of him, Paul or Sturm this summer (or even better, one of Paul/Tierney AND Sturm). ESPECIALLY if we can move off Dickinson. L1 - Pettersson, Miller L2 - Horvat L3 - Paul/Tierney L4 - Lammiko, Sturm 13TH F - Richardson As C depth please
  18. Like the others, I doubt it would make a difference. I've met plenty of mature, thoughtful, bright kids in my life, and unfortunately, even more ignorant, loud mouthed adults (coming to a trucker convoy near you! ).
  19. Well then "quite a few" of those teams are going to be disappointed regardless, as only one team can sign him for "free". Best chance any team has at extending him is to trade for him. I wouldn't take that Rangers package either.
  20. They'd be welcome to extend him. Happy to go with the GTFO option otherwise. We can do better than Mayfield and spare parts.
  21. Dobson or GTFO. I like Mayfield and all, but not for Miller and the rest of that package is pretty meh. They'd still have Girard, Pulock, Pelech and Mayfield in their top 4, which is still quite good. And they massively upgrade their F core (which they desperately need).
×
×
  • Create New...