aGENT

If you buy out a player under the age of 26, you're only responsible to pay 1/3 of the contract over 2x the term vs 2/3 for players older than 26. There's also no bonuses. So like I said, being 22 we could try him out for 3 years to see if he can at least be a 2B/,3A centre and WORST case if he is AWFUL, we can buy him out for almost no penalty. All while clearing cap, adding assets, depth etc. IMO if there's something like that deal available, we should take it.

Again, just saying why some players choose to sign with the team that drafted them. They get money sooner, can burn a year off their ELC, and may choose to show loyalty to the team that drafted and supported them. Someone asked a question, I answered it.

Sure, just pointing out why not all college players don't just go UFA (beyond showing some appreciation and loyalty in the teams that drafted and supported them).

You can also sign earlier with the team that drafted you, burn a year off your ELC, and get paid bigger money, sooner. As for Thrum and the Canucks, we should certainly be kicking tires, but Boston/back East seem obvious..

I just view it as a means to an end. We're shipping out some of Miller's long term risk in exchange for Kotkaniemi's, while also gaining 3m+ of extra cap space, and picks/prospects, while re-aligning our team age range. And as @HKSRpointed out, as a percentage of cap, in a few years, that's what good 3C's will be making anyway. Absolute WORST case, his buyout in 2-3 years is VERY manageable if he absolutely craters (unlike Miller's). So if we feel we can better use that cap at that point (when we should finally be competing), that's a better option as well vs $8m declining, 33 year old Miller with his much higher buyout costs.

I think "what they're trying to do" may be revised. Don't disagree with most of the rest of that post.

Yup, just needs a team where he'd be a good fit and have to figure out how the $ works.

A top 5 pick this draft and a butt load of cap space can go a long way to making the current roster more competitive in parallel with the prospect pool FWIW. The added pieces, depth, prospects, picks and cap space would arguably be more worthwhile actually, if used well.

Yup as I pointed out, I doubt Stamkos minds having guys like Point, Hagel, Sergachev or Cernak around anymore than MacKinnon (or Landeskog or Johnson) minds Makar, Girard or Byram helping them win a cup. It's a ridiculous premise.

First of all, I doubt Stamkos minds having guys like Point, Hagel, Sergachev or Cernak around. That's a ridiculous premise that guys drafted now, can't be parts (big or small) of a playoff team. Second, who says we need to keep and develop to full maturity, ALL of those picks/prospects? They and the cap space freed by moving Miller can be used to add other assets as required/available. Can it? Are we talking competitive for a cup? Playoffs? Even with a player of Horvat's caliber ON the roster, and better structure, this team was a bubble/wild card team at best. I don't think you're recognizing what's happening here MLL. Exactly, so multiply assets, sell guys who won't be here/be productive when we are competitive, and BUILD for another day. This is exactly what I'm advocating. I don't want to follow the old MIN plan to mediocrity with a bunch of prime aged guys being held back with inefficient/dead cap and no prospect pool to support them. BUILD. Not without cap space, or prospects turn players to improve with they won't.

Yeah Vegas is a wild card for sure. Never know what they're going to do Was actually reading an article yesterday that CAR might want to get assets for Nikishin given the breakdown with the NHL and Russian hockey, to the war etc, him being under contract there for a couple more years, and that they won't likely have room for both him and Seeley in the organization anyway. Hard to say if adding Rathbone would be enough, but I'd certainly love to take a long range flyer on him if the price is right. Could be a really good 2LD in 2-3 years...

Possibly. I'm certainly not guaranteeing Miller gone. We'll see how close they think they are. After their "major surgery" and "everyone but Petey" comments, it doesn't sound like they think they're that close (which I'd agree with). IMO the Canucks desperately need to multiply assets and reset around youth/Petey/Hughes.

Yeah, at this point I'd be shocked if Meier ended up somewhere other than NJD. They have the assets to outbid pretty much everyone, he fits their needs and age range perfectly. Just a matter of when IMO. Miller + Rathbone for Kotkaniemi, Morrow, Nikishin/Seeley and their 1st.

I keep seeing this sentiment but I completely disagree. They gave the team this season to prove they should build around them... and they fell completely on their collective face, right out of the gate. Miller included. I have zero issue with them adjusting the plan to that reality with, in their own words, "major surgery". Again, Miller (potentially) included. Doesn't have to be an "eff up" at all. They extended (below market) him as they viewed that as the better option vs whatever trade offers they had at the time. The team continued to flounder and they're revaluating what the best way forward is. It in no way, shape or form must include keeping Miller as part of that plan.

Try and snag Nikishin from them as well IMO...even if we have to add/retain/take back cap etc.

I assume they're referring to that he has some measure of club control (RFA) and can't walk as UFA/not a rental. He's also a few years younger which would be appealing for a guy they'd have to extend for 6-8 years. But he's likely to cost $1m+ more AAV than Miller under those circumstances and his trade acquisition cost will be MUCH higher.

https://www.thefourthperiod.com/pagnotta/hot-mess-in-calgary#.Y-0F7pga0c0.twitter

Also has a metric butt-tonne of leadership for such a young guy. Traded him in fantasy, because he's obviously not a big point producer, but I'd happily build a real team with him on it any day.

I love Anderson. Wish we had him.

He (like Hughes and OEL) would also be better served with a more defensive minded partner, to cover for the "lapses" D like him have. While NHL players should certainly always strive to improve/refine/add to their game, expecting him to completely alter his play style at this point isn't terribly realistic. He's never been that type of D (simplified/safe) and likely never will be. You need to actually put players in position to succeed, knowing their respective skill sets, strengths and weaknesses. Partner/line mate them appropriately, build systems and schemes around those skillsets, strengths and partners/linemates... A TEAM, an identity. Something vast swaths of this fan base (and our previous management) don't seem to grasp. Yes it's a pet peeve of mine

He can dab his tears with $100 bills.

Maybe after we "buyout OEL"

For us? I'd wait until July 1 and see what he'd cost as a UFA.