Maniwaki Canuck

Some of the crazy overpayments proposed here show that the cure can be worse than the illness. I'm not arguing that our RD are great or that trading for good young ones will come cheap. But if you overpay so much, you better have a clear idea of what problem you are fixing. Is it Hughes Norris-level play this year? He seems to be doing pretty well without a great partner. That's one measure of an outstanding player. It allows you to have strength in other areas, like we do at forward. And gives us the identity of an attacking team that we got away from under Green latterly. It's true that we don't have a particularly balanced lineup so I understand where the idea of rebalancing comes from, but it gets us away from playing to our strengths, just like Green's system did.

I'm happy to talk nice but that particular point had been covered multiple times in this thread and others. In the end, we agree on what the situation is and that's good. None of this is to say that we might want to re-jig where we spend our money in the lineup, but that's a choice, not a necessity. Personally, I like a run and gun lineup like the one we've got, but I accept that might not be to everyone's taste or give the best results.

For sure the next few months are for evaluation, and it's more than fair to suspect that there are still some holes to fill. But the team is playing so differently under Boudreau that a lot of our earlier judgements about the roster may have to be revised: we'll see. For example, with Hughes playing at borderline Norris level, I'm not so sure that it's as urgent to get a Tanev-like partner in order to get the best out of him. It would be nice but he's doing it on his own now So beyond filling holes, there is the question of what kind of team we're going to be: high octane run and gun, or a more balanced approach. That where things get really interesting.

That's right. But we can keep this roster next year if we want to. The claim was that we can't, which is wrong. It gets harder the following year with Bo and Miller needing raises but there's the 2.4 M in expiring buyouts, Hamonic's 3M coming off the books, and any raise that there might be in the cap. Worst case, we might have to move another piece in the 2-3M range to make it work, but that's not the biggest challenge. Personally, I don't accept that our RD is the catastrophe some people say it is. Myers has been great in the new system, Poolman was better until he went down, and Hamonic was fine as a mid-pairing option. Then there's the crazy depth of Schenn, Burroughs, Juulsen and Bowey, the first three of which can play in the NHL.

Just plain wrong. Luongo's 3M hit ends this year and the cap goes up by 1M. So if we keep the rest of the roster the same, that's 4M to deal with raises for Boesser and Motte. It's more than enough. Seriously man, check out Capfriendly and you won't make these blunders.

Okay, but that's a different matter than claiming we don't have the cap space, so you're moving the goalposts here.

For sure there are some hard decisions coming and a lot will depend on how the team plays in the next couple of months. The first step is to see what you have under a competent coaching regime, and so far, so good. Maybe we actually are a good team or maybe there are still too many holes in the lineup to put any stock in this group: we'll see. Mixed in with that assessment, time-wise, has to be a preliminary conversation with Miller's agent to find out if he would be open to re-signing here if things go well with the team. If the answer is "yes" there will undoubtedly be tough negotiations ahead over money that might lead to a trade, but if the answer is "no" then it goes straight to a trade, and the sooner the better. But I don't think the team should choose to re-tool by initiating a Miller trade, and only do it if he won't re-sign or prices himself out of the market (e.g. 9M). Cup winning teams typically have their core players distributed over a 10 year age bracket, with some key players in the early to mid 30s. Miller could be that guy for us. So I don't automatically buy the idea that just because of his age, he should be the guy we move to fill any holes. If we do move him, it should be because he wouldn't re-sign, or re-sign at a viable number.

Yay, you actually did the math instead of mindlessly repeating the talking point about there not being enough cap space to keep all of Brock, Bo and Miller. There totally is, and all anyone had to do was look at Capfriendly to see so. What people were forgetting about is Luongo's cap recapture penalty ending after this year and the Holtby/Virtanen buyouts ending after next: 5.4 million right there. Of course that money could be spent in other ways and we might end up moving on from one of those forwards for team balance reasons, but that's a separate question. Miller is a total stud and central to this team's identity. Letting him walk would be an even bigger mistake than letting Tanev go. If he won't re-sign, of course we should deal him but this is the kind of guy you overpay on the back end of a long term deal for what he brings now and most likely the next 5 years. Brock is way more replaceable than Miller and until Petey gets his full mojo back, I'd say the same about him.

Yeah, you'd think they'd have to calculate by games scheduled as opposed to games actually played. Especially since those games haven't been "cancelled", just "postponed".

No argument from me: there were some minor legal repercussions if I recall correctly.

Great player. Must have been about 5 yrs. ago that he got drunk in a bar in downtown Ottawa and grabbed a cop's ass. One bad dude.

Sucks to go on pause again but it's the right call.

Time to lay the smack down on TO: they don't know how to deal with their covid issues and are going to be vulnerable .500 is in reach tonight and so is a record for Boudreau. Let's get this done!

Absolutely and I do expect they will, since Boudreau has already identified Miller as a key member of the team. Personally, I'd try to keep the aav at 8 or under and add another year or two to do it, ideally no more than 6. This is one area where Hughes' salary helps set an internal cap on the team: to get 8 or more, you have to be better than him, which arguably nobody is. It's hard to know at what point to cut bait. Losing Miller would be another gut-punch for a team that's had a few too many in recent years. If he goes, maybe others will want to also since it amounts to deferring their window to contend. So this is a crucial issue to resolve.

With our cap issues and sold top 3 d, I'd be looking for someone more physical and at a lower pay grade and cost of acquisition than these guys.

This is the crucial question. I'm very much in the "keep him" camp but if he doesn't want to stay, the only question is when to move him. While they can't extend him until next summer, an informal talk with his agent would surely reveal whether such an extension is a non-starter. If he wants to go, he'll probably want to go sooner than later. If he's willing to stay if the price is right, that's when things get tricky, but if they can't agree on terms, chances are they could still move him at the draft in 2022. His value drops the longer it takes to reach a resolution.

Yeah, maybe he was trying to do too much there. On the big club, he's been fairly solid except for two bad shifts last night that I'd like to have another look at to figure out what went wrong. But when he's kept it simple, stuck to puck retrieval, making a quick first pass and playing the body, he's been fine.

Let's give them something demoralizing to dwell on all that time!

you got it

fake news from dubious sources

For sure, thought he looked good in his cameo last year and think he's ready for more.

Hopefully Brisebois slots in on the bottom pair and we take it to these guys. The sooner we get to .500 the sooner we can talk about doing some damage in January when our schedule gets tough.

I understand that orcas squeeze the livers out of sharks and eat them, leaving the rest of the carcass. Helluva way to win a game.

very telling analysis: the difference is almost shocking but fits with what we've been seeing

It's a good tactic to have in the mix: one way to beat the trap, lock and general clogging of the neutral zone without the same risks as the stretch pass. And I think our forwards are actually pretty good at puck retrieval. But it's not a substitute for puck support on the breakout. Controlled exits and entries are always better, but when you can't, lobs have their place.