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. Yeah, clearly in his own head, and could maybe use a change of scenery. Still nothing like Chiasson.
  2. No. He's in no way, anything like Chiasson. For starters, he's a very good skater. Hoglander was getting scratched not long ago as well.
  3. If it means we get to send Poolman back...? And I actually think Kapanen might just mesh really well with Horvat. This exactly. Boeser + Poolman for Marino +Kapanen/Rod is a cap in/out scenario. We get an extra pick/prospect for giving up the best player.
  4. Sure. It's still a funny way to spell Barron and Newhook.
  5. Byram and Newhook? That's a funny way to spell Barron and Newhook. Is that old English or something?
  6. Exactly. It's a route I'd prefer not using for too many key pieces. Better to use that tool to fill in role/depth players. We do on D. Badly. Younger, faster and cheaper.
  7. It's certainly a concern. I have to hope that if they do move Miller out, our new management has the wherewithal to bring in appropriate culture carriers to complement the ones remaining. And that some of the younger guys take up that mantle. They won't return the same quality of D IMO. And in all honestly, we might need that move ON TOP of Miller. Our right side really is meh and only gets worse after the next two seasons, with expiring contracts. Assuming we get a young D back as per above, I'd happily move off 2 of Hamonic, Poolman and Myers. Hamonic/Poolman especially, are one more middling bottom/mid pair, +/-$3m tweeners than needed. Quality over quantity. That's fair. I just don't see any realistic deal that makes sense for the Canucks and Miller. There's just too big of a gap.
  8. Again, depends on the offers though. If we're out of it at the TDL and the Rangers are only offering up something Kravstov, Barron and a first... They can &^@# off. We can get that value (likely more) in the summer.
  9. Depends on the offers IMO. If someone comes in with an overpay at the TDL, you have to take it IMO. That said, at this point, summer seems a lot more likely.
  10. Bo is not a 3C (I assume you meant C) He's a mediocre 1RD, is expiring in 2 more years and will be 34. Who's playing there in our contention window? Sure. Schenn expires next year. What's your plan then? I'm skeptical "Bone" is a fit at 3LD behind Hughes and OEL. Where is he getting the offensive usage and PP minutes behind those guys to be successful and suit his skill set? Who's killing penalties? They've been playing well no doubt. And we have some good players. Not in question. That doesn't make this a contention roster though. If they'd made that offer, the trade is already done IMO.
  11. Not necessarily (though it would be great if we get a younger, ELC/RFA version of one by luck). Because of cap, age, contention windows and opportunity cost.
  12. That's not actually the goal of a move like this. You simply don't "replace" a guy like Miller. Great if you get lucky and it happens with one of your trade return turning in to that, but it's not the main goal. This team has holes now (even more moving forward),...3C, RD1, RD2, 3LD, solid PK F's probably the most obvious. If you can fill a couple or 3 of those holes by moving Miller, while also freeing up cap, you open up opportunity to trade for the "next Miller", down the line, with a deeper team, in its contention window and the "next Miller" on his pre-breakout, bargain deal (like Miller is on now). Without that cap space, you have opportunity cost. You lose the ability to make that move, to fill those holes, to create the depth around your star players that is required for deep playoff runs.
  13. While there is certainly risk to any contract, those two are not remotely the same. One is a goalie entering his prime at a moderate cap hit, the other is a forward, exiting his in what will be a very large cap hit. The risk is FAR greater with the latter. Outliers are a poor framework to make major, long term, large cap allocation decisions on. And it's not "when you hit your 30's". It's 32. There's overwhelming statistical evidence that the vast majority of forwards decline, sharply, at or right around 32. The math clearly shows we likely get two years of full value out of any new Miller deal and it's downhill and an increasing anchor from there. Right when we should be contending, with our young core at their peaks. Is it possible Miller turns out to be an outlier as well? Sure. That's not anything prudent management should be gambling on though IMO. Especially not with where we are in our cycle. If Petey and Hughes were already 26-28 and the D more fleshed out... By all means. Agreed on that. I'd happily sign Miller to a $7.5x4-5 year deal. Don't see any way he's going to do that though.
  14. Again, nobody is suggesting he isn't a good player NOW. That's not the issue.
  15. It's not the age, it's the term and cap. Pavelski at 1 or 2 year increments and +/- $6m is GREAT. I would never have signed him for 8 years at +/- $8.5m, at 30 years old however. WAY too much risk.
  16. While I agree he gets an unnecessary amount of hate, a lot depends on what other returns we get elsewhere. Get a Marino and one of Schneider, Lundkvist, Barron etc back in other moves and moving Myers starts to make a lot more sense, while shaving off pretty sizeable cap dollars. I wonder if the Stars would have interest this summer with Klingberg expiring...
  17. That anyone here is ok allocating $9m + for 8 years, to a 30 year old, given where we are as an organization is
  18. A few hundred K here, a few hundred K there, improved D and faster players (plus the option to move out other D with better, younger, faster players). Our cap issues aren't likely to be solved in one move. We'll have to chip away at it.
  19. We'd also need to send a D back, as I said earlier. Money in. Money out. For example: Garland + Hamonic = $7.95m Boeser + Poolman = $8.375m (and going up with his new deal). Whether PIT is interested in something like that? Who knows?
  20. Tanev played pretty well with Hughes, didn't he? Marino could skate with him, play solid D and help Hughes push the puck forward. Likely get a bump in offensive stats just by virtue of being on the ice with Hughes. Would I prefer a guy with more size, that's got a bigger offensive ceiling (Barron, Schneider etc)? Sure (and really, I'm not expecting those guys to put up gaudy offensive stats either but propably more like 30-35 vs Marino's likely 20-25). But maybe we get that from a Miller trade or we manage to draft Jiriceck this year or we fall in to a college FA who develops in to that etc, etc. Or maybe we have to make due as those guys don't grow on trees. We need two, young, high end, top 4 RHD in the next couple years. I'd have no problem with Marino being one of them.
  21. Good for him and well deserved. Still playing at a high level with Robertson and Hintz.
  22. He sounds like pretty much exactly as I've described. Doesn't put up a lot of offense but continually drives play forward. Plays good D, good skater, good underlying numbers (in the context of a defensive D). Plays a similar (not identical) game type as a young Tanev. Read in to that whatever you'd like. You always do Exactly (and kind of my point). Marino may or may not develop in to something like a Tanev player but right now, at similar ages they have similar games with a similar effect on play. If management (who have far more information than any of us) has faith that he can continue to evolve in that direction, I have little issue with him being a target return for a potential Boeser/Garland trade. And agree on Kapanen. Good, sneaky, "buy low" candidate that I agree is likely a very good fit with Bo. And yes, it will be hard to "replace" Brock's offensive numbers. Similar to moving Miller, you're losing the best player and directly "replacing" isn't really the goal. Building a better, more cohesive (and faster) team, under the cap, is.
  23. Has anyone suggested Miller isn't a good player? An emotional leader (for good and bad)? A really good player? Nope, nope and nope. You're an old man yelling at a cloud here. He's 29 in 3 days. He'll be 30 when any new deal kicks in. Forwards tend to regress pretty hard at 32+. That's not fantasy, that's cold, hard statistics. Again, nobody has suggested he isn't a valuable player. I fully agree we need players like Miller, just not a 30+ year old +/- $8.5m dollar version of one that's going to decline and become a boat anchor in the middle of our contention window. I'm hopeful too! Would love for the team to actually sneak in to the playoffs and win the cup this year. I'd also love Miller to extend at $7.5m x 4 years! Are either remotely likely...? Uh...no. Do I think we stand a chance against the Tampas, Carolinas, Floridas, Colorados etc? Nope. We're not even at the tier down of Washington, Boston, Pittsburgh, Calgary etc level. We're probably a hair behind better bubble teams like Dallas and Nashville even. I want better than a bubble/*fingers crossed* team. I want the league to fear us and view us as a juggernaut that's almost certainly bound for the finals. We're nowhere close, as presently constructed. There's only so many ways to address that. Allocating vast swaths of our already tight cap space to a soon to be 30 year old, soon to be declining player, for 6-8 years is not how I'd suggest we go about that. I've seen very few people (none I think) suggesting draft picks and years away prospects. NHL players, NHL ready prospects. Just stop with this lame straw man. We are definitely not just 2 players away from being the feared contender I wrote about above. And we're certainly bound to get further from those two players as our older D expire the next couple years and we allocate increasingly more cap to guys like Miller as you suggest.
  24. https://lmgtfy.app/?q=john+marino+advanced+stats
×
×
  • Create New...