Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Baggins

Members
  • Posts

    11,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Baggins

  1. So Linden was "in his prime" until 28 and Horvat is "in his prime" starting at 28? You need to decide when a players prime is because it just sounds like a more clutching at straws to pump Horvat's tires. Regardless, Linden is not exactly the guy to point to for a positive Horvat point trajectory at 28. Linden was a very good two way player, but after 28 his offensive production was never the same. The only real Linden comparison for Horvat at 28 is both are two way players, with Linden both better defensively and far more physical. But Linden also played through that trap happy, clutch and grab, dead puck era. Which can't really be translated to todays hockey.
  2. Why do you think Bo was put in the bumper position? He's always been more shooter than playmaker. I'm willing to bet Miller is a big part of Horvats PP goals. That's a two way street. Shooters score more with good playmakers, playmakers need shooters. But Miller has a good shot as well. Imo that's the reason Miller replaced Boeser on that left side. Good shooter/playmaker versus good shooter. But to answer your speculation, since Miller arriving... Miller 106 1st assists, 47 on PP Horvat 103 goals, 43 on PP
  3. I figured Petey the most likely next C, but I'd actually prefer Miller. First, Miller doesn't give pure vanilla answers game after game. Which would be a nice change on it's own. Second, my takeaway from after hours was Petey didn't even seem comfortable with the idea and said himself, "I've never been a captain before" and something along the line of "I prefer to just focus on my game". If he's wishy-washy on it, better he's to stick with a rotating A for him instead. But I've always been in the "you don't need a letter to be a leader" camp anyway. I think YOU missed my point. Teams can turn around on a dime with just a couple of good moves and a young guy stepping up. You can "predict" all you want. It's a just meaningless guessing game. Ultimately the first step in being a playoff regular is making the playoffs. I don't think that will take 4 years. Crosby signed his 8.7m deal 10 years ago. The cap was 22m lower back then. Malkin signed his $6m 4 year deal at age 36. Details matter.
  4. The per 60 is only at even strength. Does the PP or even SH not matter somehow?
  5. I'd rather be free of Boeser's salary, or Myer's salary. How long do you want to suck? Constantly trading away your good players for hopes and dreams down the road is the Buffalo and Arizona cycle. You could even include Ottawa and Columbus. At some point you need to stop rebuilding and start building around your talent. There's good talent on this team. We need to build around it. Are you absolutely certain we won't be happy with Miller in 4/5 year? There are quite a few high producing players around that are 34+. The question is will Miller be one of them? I never would have predicted Eriksson would go from 30+ goals directly to never hitting even 15 goals again. But I also never would have predicted undersized Martin St Louis, another late bloomer, producing over a ppg at 37 and retiring at 40 with 52 pts in 72 games that last season. My point is, you can't predict it.
  6. I don't think you followed the conversation very well. Is 9/10 "similar" to 1/10? Re-read what Alf said and my response.
  7. What timeline? Do you have a crystal ball? Can you accurately predict who will remain productive well into their 30's and who won't? Has any team been a contender without any good players over 30? Can you predict when a team when a team will make the turn? It's nothing but predictions with no real basis other than "I think". I've said it before, Seattle was the 3rd worst team in the league last season and yet this season they are in a dogfight for 1st in the Pacific. Were Miller with Seattle last year and this one, does he suddenly change from "not fitting the timeline" last year, to "glad we have him" this year? Did anybody predict that sudden Seattle turnaround? Will they build on that or crumble back down? It's quite surprising the difference one year can make with a few offseason moves that pan out. A few bad moves and some young guys not panning out and we could be just as bad in a five years. A few good moves and some young guys taking a good step and we could be like Seattle as early as next year. All I truly care about is seeing good entertaining hockey through the season again. For me that's goal number one. Anything after that is gravy as long as it lasts.
  8. Big picturte since Miller arrived....
  9. Gillis inherited a 9 situation to Bennings 1. In my 60+ years I've never seen a GM inherit a worse situation. Even expansion teams in the 90's got to start with a top draft pick, some younger players worth keeping around, and some middling prospects from farm teams. Benning had Tanev, the only player under 27 worth keeping, and a barren farm team. But that's what happens with seven years of fruitless drafting (the last Nonis draft was a complete bust).
  10. Blah, blah, blah. One way to remain a contender is scoring draft hits outside the top 20. How many prospects did Gillis trade away that he drafted at trade deadlines? Gillis traded picks for playoff pushes. Good prospects he inherited and most of those were on the team. The farm was emptied through bad drafting. Gillis had picks and scored nothing. My favorite excuse is, Gillis was drafting at the end of rounds. First the Cup champions 1st round pick is before the worst teams "highly valuable" 2nd round pick. Second is the flipside, tankers crying Benning needs to be adding highly valuable draft picks at the deadline! Those are the picks Gillis couldn't score any hits with - later in the round picks. It's nonsense. The bottom line is: no matter where you are drafting you need to score some hits. Whether in the first round or the 7th round, the beginning of a round or the end. You can't go six years with no draft hits.
  11. I didn't have a problem with Benning trading for young guys with potential at all. We needed some youth on the team and Gillis left nothing on the farm to draw from. Draft pick are no more proven than good young Ahl'ers. Neither comes with guarantees. The only real difference is waiting 3-5 years to find out.
  12. And fans would have been mighty happy with that pick. I don't buy Virtanen was Bennings pick and never have. He was new here and Boston was drafting nowhere near top 10. I think it was the scouting staff wanted Virtanen. That always elusive power forward. Several of those scouts were replaced that offseason and Bracket promoted. It's easy to say "bad picks Benning" and "good picks anybody else" but the truth is we'll never know with any certainty.
  13. The reason Chicago had a lengthy window to contend was Toews and Kane coming at the end of their rebuild. They had a lot in place when those two joined the team. They didn't need to spend years and years building around them. And the two drafts before them, Chicago drafted Skille 7th and Barker 3rd overall. Like Juolevi, not what you hope for that high in the draft. We had a small window with the Sedins because it took too long to build the team around them. Many do seem to think, draft a couple of stars and you're a contender. But no team wins the cup without a solid team surrounding their stars.
  14. Fans wanted Glass or Vilardi when we selected Pettersson. There are no guarantees. Imagine how different the team would look if fan choice was made that year. Woulda coulda is a two way street.
  15. The only way I would move Miller is if the offer was just too good to turn down. He can score goals, is a good playmaker, pretty good defensively, and the most physical guy we have in our top six. Does he lose his temper from time to time? Sure. But at least he has some fire and his pros far outweigh his cons.
  16. Seattle went from third worst team in the league last season to being in a dogfight for 1st in the Pacific this year. It's surprising the difference a few moves and a years experience for younger players can make from one season to the next.
  17. Millers deal ends at 37, Horvat's at 36. So your math is off. But, and I've said it many times, goal scoring tends to drop off quicker in a players 30's than playmaking ablility. Miller is a good playmaker. I still believe Miller will be the better player into those mid 30's and now he costs less. There is actually no way to accurately predict a players decline. There are highly productive players right now that are 34+ in the league. Only time will tell.
  18. I'm a Canuck fan and he is just another player that moved on, whether by choice or circumstance. Players, even ones we like, get moved. I was use to that decades ago. Every player signing an new deal is a remains to be seen. Even if they have a production track record you never truly know if the player will live up to the new deal or not. A track record impoves the odds though. But loving a player doesn't mean overpaying him is a good idea. I don't care if we draft a player, trade for him, or sign him in free agency. If his contract demand is too high you move on. I've never been in the "I like him so pay him whatever it takes" camp. But I don't complain about a fair deal for any player, and do appreciate those rare guys that are willing to take less because they truly want to be here. To my knowledge he didn't ask to be traded. Meaning he didn't actually choose it. You could say he had the choice of sign a reasonable deal or risk being moved. But he didn't ask for it. Horvat has always been pure vanilla in interviews saying the right things. So what he said about the trade should be taken with a grain of vanilla salt. Although I'm fairly certain he is very happy his new team gave him the money he wanted.
  19. I'm smart enough to know I ddn't need to go through 500 pages. As his contract couldn't be extended until July first all I needed to do was find the posts starting at that point. I went through around 25 pages just looking for the embedded tweets. Found one claiming their opening offer was $5m and also found one saying Horvats camp was looking for around $7.7m. Through the summer I heard on several sports shows that Horvat was looking for "similar money" to what Miller signed for. I always take insider info and show talk blabber with a grain of salt. But why is one completely believable to you and not the other? You do seem to desperately defend Bo. Me, I don't really care. I'm used to players coming and going. Even the ones I like. We got a pretty decent return for Bo and I'm happy to move on. Sure, the opening offer was $5m but they didn't negotiate at all after that until September. Sure, I believe that.
  20. The red flag on that for me is when asked about his increased goal scoring he gave the exact same answer as Kesler in the 10/11 season - I spent a lot of time shooting pucks in the offseason. Kesler said he was shooting hundreds and hundreds of pucks daily to iumprove his accuracy. That season at 26 Kesler scored 41 goals and tied Daniel for the team lead. He never scored 30 prior to that and never hit 30 after that season. So was Kesler's high scoring a one off purely as a result of heavy offseason shooting that he didn't continue in the offseasons afterwards? The upside was Kesler's high goal season came right after signing an extension rather than in a contract year. Will Bo continue to put in that amount shot practice into his offseasons now that he has his retirement deal? If not will his goal production fall back to his previous typical level? I'm not sold many, if anybody, has a "hate on" for Bo. Not viewing a player as worth the money he's seeking has little to do with hating. It's just the business side of life. Players come and go.
×
×
  • Create New...