Dr. Crossbar Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Resigning Miller just makes sense from a standpoint of transitioning Markstrom and buying Demko more development time. Like I said in another thread, if he's going to be an back up somewhere, it might as well be here over the next couple of years. At the very least, we wouldn't have to worry about our net issues while Benning focuses on matters at hand. Try to sign him around 4 for 2. Miller's true value would be his role throughout our retool/rebuild to keep us consistent while we get to Markstrom/Demko. We're actually lucky we have this option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaguez Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Miller will be a King or Duck next year. Likely will take less to be closer to home. Can't see any reason an aging goalie would choose a rebuilding team irregardless of being labelled 1 or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where'd Luongo? Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 52 minutes ago, nickels said: Left side of Edler, Trymakin and Hutton w/Juolevi/McEneny behind them Right side of Tanev Stetcher Gudbranson w/Biega Subban Pedan behind them Plus an additional 3.6 in cap space to help with offense. Real devastating loss if Vegas claims Sbisa... None of which, with the exception of Tanev, have proven to be as reliable in the defensive end as Sbisa. Your proposal is like saying we can get rid of Sutter because he can easily be replaced with Gaunce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Do we actually know what we have in Markstrom? Seems to me he hasn't really been given a chance to run with it. He starts in the second game of back to backs after not playing a week or more then is expected to stand on his head with a tired inexperienced team in front of him. I need to see Markstrom play more games before I'd call him a career backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beary Sweet Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 It will be great to re-sign Millsy to a multi year deal just in time before Demko will be ready for backup duties behind Marky. He's also a great leader, on and off the ice. You can never forget what he did to protect Stecher from that dirty Martin. He has a heart of a Canuck and even though he didn't play his entire career here, he shows up every game ready to play. I think he'll sign for $4-4.5 per on a multi year deal. He's worth every penny of this deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ39 Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Should Re sign Miller for what he did to help Stetcher! haha but in all seriousness we should bring him back while Demko develops in the AHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 I wouldn't be oppose to re-signing Miller, but I feel like we would have to massively overpay him to convince him to stay. I'll just wait until Pittsburgh buyout Fleury's contract and sign him to a cheap 1 year deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 4 hours ago, mpt said: Vegas is a lot closer to LA than Vancouver and will need a goalie It might be appealing in its way for Miller. Glenn Resch won a Masterton for doing exactly this late in his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 1 hour ago, PLOGUE said: Miller will be a King or Duck next year. Likely will take less to be closer to home. Can't see any reason an aging goalie would choose a rebuilding team irregardless of being labelled 1 or 2. It's better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. No goalie wants to be a backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Re-signing Miller is a decent plan, but as a back up goaltender. Jacob Markstrom needs a string of games to show what he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 7 hours ago, nickels said: IMO we greatly overpaid for Miller when there was basically no competition for his services. Any evidence of this? I highly doubt Benning was the only phone call or offer. that $6m with an ntc was a reasonable price and well below what elite ufa eligible goalies get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exhile Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 I agree with most people on this thread about Miller. Resign him for 2 years for 2.5-4.0 million. Markstrom hasn't proven he can be a #1 goalie and Demko is coming up the ranks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbanezRG Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 I think Miller may have been playing TOO well and jacked up his value more then most teams were comfortable paying for a rental... well that's part of it I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Markstrom is getting a 2.1M$ raise next year...so Miller's salary would have to be reduce by almost the same amount, so anything around 4M would be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Miller will/could get a 3 year deal in free agency. Term might actually mean more than $'s. A 1 yr deal with Van where Markstrom gets the majority of games is wishful thinking. More important to be building Markstrom towards his career peak than keeping Miller. Markstrom got no where near enough games this year. The stretch where Miller was out for 2 weeks showed what Markstrom was capable of. He is a #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 11 hours ago, Bo fan said: I'm not privy to what happens behind closed doors but sometimes I question whether Marky is ready to be a No 1 goalie. Some nights he shines and others not so bright. Maybe cause he doesn't get to play enough I don't know but I have often wondered why he doesn't get more starts. Would be happy to see Miller resigned for less money and short term - no more then 2 years and think that could be a gamble as well Both Miller and Markstrom have similar records and performances this year. As a result, WD is somewhat forced to play the goalie that is getting paid twice as much. If he doesn't play him, it makes the Miller signing look bad and therefore makes JB look bad. Politics does come in play here...even though no one will admit to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 10 hours ago, Honky Cat said: I'm also in on resigning Miller,until Makstrom and Demko are ready to take the reins.... Markstrom is 27 years old...he should be ready when he is in his prime...when he is 28 years old...that's next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Miller's performance as a Canuck at $6M per year. Year 1 - played first half of year, was over played, got hurt and did not play the second half of the year. Lack got us into the playoffs playing the pressure games down the stretch drive. Year 2 - Canucks finished 3rd from last. Bad year for the team...Miller was not great. Year 3 - Canucks will finish 3rd or 4th from last...Miller played as well as Markstrom...average play. Miller was brought in to help make the team compete for a playoff spot. The goal at the start was to make the playoffs every year so that the players would get valuable experience playing in the playoffs (Player development). Only one year did the Canucks make the playoffs when Miller was on the roster; and the same year, Miller was hurt for the last half of the year. He didn't even play when it mattered. At $6 M per year, Miller was a bad signing. (At the time, no one was interested in Miller because of his poor play with St Louis, yet JB paid him $6 M and gave him a modified NTC) The Canucks would have been much better off signing 2 UFA defencemen in year one of JB's tenure when there was a lot of UFA defencemen available and not sign Miller. The money for Miller would have gone to the defencemen and Markstrom and Lack would have been our goalies. The result would not have been any worst than with Miller. In fact, it might have been better with the improved D...rather than playing Weber, Bartkowski and other inexperienced "D" instead. As an avid follower of the Canucks, the "D" was the obvious achillies heel of the Canucks before and when JB took over the reigns. What did he do? He got rid of Garrison and did not replace him with the same or better quality. Signing Miller at $6 M per year is a failure on JB's record as GM IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appleboy Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 41 minutes ago, Pete M said: Both Miller and Markstrom have similar records and performances this year. As a result, WD is somewhat forced to play the goalie that is getting paid twice as much. If he doesn't play him, it makes the Miller signing look bad and therefore makes JB look bad. Politics does come in play here...even though no one will admit to it. Find a backup for a mil. There is lots of goal tenders out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 5 hours ago, Baggins said: Any evidence of this? I highly doubt Benning was the only phone call or offer. that $6m with an ntc was a reasonable price and well below what elite ufa eligible goalies get. Yeah, his play when he was in St Louis...the Blues were a cup contender at the time, they brought in Miller to win the cup...Miller crapped the bed...big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.