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

[Rumour] J.T. Miller Trade/Contract Talks


Podzilla

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, JM_ said:

:lol: ok. 

 

Multiple GMs thinking a player was good is relevant in UFA season, if you like it or not. 

You're justifying a stupid act by pointing to others who would/might have done the same stupid act.

 

Surely I don't need to recite for you the "if your friend jumped off a bridge" idiom... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You're justifying a stupid act by pointing to others who would/might have done the same stupid act.

 

Surely I don't need to recite for you the "if your friend jumped off a bridge" idiom... 

and you're playing games. We only know it was "a stupid act" in hindsight. A lot of quality hockey people thought he was a good risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

Who? Examples?

 

What's hindsight for some was easily predictable for others.

go back to the start of the Loui thread. Its all there. 

 

This is why you and others get negative reactions, its hard to have an honest conversation about things. Unless you're a complete Benning hater you guys get pissy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

go back to the start of the Loui thread. Its all there. 

 

This is why you and others get negative reactions, its hard to have an honest conversation about things. Unless you're a complete Benning hater you guys get pissy. 

What's dishonest is sweeping mistakes under the rug by claiming that they were sound moves at the time and only look bad in hindsight.

 

When you and I both know there has always been a lot of consternation over most moves Benning has made as soon as they are made, and a lot have not worked out.

 

Yes, not all the moves have been bad and yes, at times there's been way too much consternation than necessary, but the overall body of work has been a dumpster and the results match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

We're talking about this season, but what about overall as captain? 

 

This season already, is an anomaly. Bo's not Bo. Petey's not Petey. Brock's not Brock. There is so much that isn't 'normal' according to the talent, and character of some of these players. I think something is much deeper than what we can see as fans. Something is sick and hidden. We just aren't privy to know what that is. But something is definitely amiss, don't you think? 

 

He has never been a tough physical player/ gritty leader.  Nothing that epitomizes your “Lead”on a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Who? Examples?

 

What's hindsight for some was easily predictable for others.


Let’s not try to rewrite history. Boston wanted to re-sign him for 4 years at $6m and the Kings, Ducks, Predators and Flyers were interested in signing him at the time in addition to the Canucks. A guy coming off a 30 goal season isn’t exactly chickenscratch. He went bust, it ended up being a bad trade, but that’s only known with the power of hindsight.

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/top-16-nhl-ufas-unrestricted-free-agents-2016-steven-stamkos-anze-kopitar-dustin-byfuglien-andrew-ladd-staal-okposo-vrbata/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AC30 said:

Miller has a huge persona and if he is going against the coach he must go or the coach must -  and it appears that the coach is staying 


GMJB has been working with player agents to find out who is in and who wants to move on - Miller and Boeser want out 

surprised that Petey isn’t being shipped - after being quoted saying he wants to be on a winning team 

 

Simple as that 

Miller has a huge persona and if he is going against the coach he must go or the coach must -  and it appears that the coach is staying 
 

Show me where that has been said.

THAT is a huge misleading statement unless it’s said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

What's dishonest is sweeping mistakes under the rug by claiming that they were sound moves at the time and only look bad in hindsight.

 

When you and I both know there has always been a lot of consternation over most moves Benning has made as soon as they are made, and a lot have not worked out.

 

Yes, not all the moves have been bad and yes, at times there's been way too much consternation than necessary, but the overall body of work has been a dumpster and the results match.

I didn't sweep anything anywhere. Loui looked like a reasonable bet to a lot of people, thats just a fact. 

 

I look at the trade for Baer e.g., as a complex one. People hated that trade, but if he hadn't got his bell rung it would have paid off on trade value. But I also hated the 3 year deal he got. So on the one hand the trade was worth it, but didn't work out due to a concussion, add to that maybe Green didn't like him and then the bad contract. There's a lot there to chew on. 

 

Agreed we do need an upgrade at GM and PHO. 

Edited by JM_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:


Let’s not try to rewrite history. Boston wanted to re-sign him for 4 years at $6m and the Kings, Ducks, Predators and Flyers were interested in signing him at the time in addition to the Canucks. A guy coming off a 30 goal season isn’t exactly chickenscratch. He went bust, it ended up being a bad trade, but that’s only known with the power of hindsight.

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/top-16-nhl-ufas-unrestricted-free-agents-2016-steven-stamkos-anze-kopitar-dustin-byfuglien-andrew-ladd-staal-okposo-vrbata/

So a handful of teams were interested, most of them not at the start of their rebuild like we were.

 

Not exactly sure what this proves?

 

It wasn't just the player in a vacuum, it was his age & concussion history as well, in relation to our trajectory as a team.

 

A contender at the time could justify a 4Y x 6M deal, especially Boston considering he was already with them.

 

Not the case for the us.

 

e/ and there's also a big difference between interested/kicking tires and actually signing him to a fat contract like we did.

Edited by kanucks25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

So a handful of teams were interested, most of them not at the start of their rebuild like we were.

 

Not exactly sure what this proves?

 

It wasn't just the player in a vacuum, it was his age & concussion history as well, in relation to our trajectory as a team.

 

A contender at the time could justify a 4Y x 6M deal, especially Boston considering he was already with them.

 

Not the case for the us.


You asked for examples of quality hockey people who thought Loui was a good risk. I gave you 5 entire NHL organizations made up of quality people that wanted to sign him. Can’t get much better quality than that. Or are you moving the goal posts and now saying not enough teams were interested at the time for Loui to be considered a good risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

He has never been a tough physical player/ gritty leader.  Nothing that epitomizes your “Lead”on a team.

I dunno. He used to play in front a lot. Drove to the net a lot more in years past than he has in recent years. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miller is not the problem.

Its the “Leadership Group” and it’s hole ideology.

The Captaincy that Bo has was basically gifted to him as a young promising player..

it was a “sell” in this town , built on hype.

Horvat has had SOME good games, but he’s not a bull in a China shop every , or every other night.

 

Miller exudes the qualities of a leader, his career so far has been built on the effort he brings every day.

He is our best player..   and he has and will continue to our work and out play Horvat every game.

 

Get rid of this “Leadership Group mentality on the ice..  save it for splitting groups up for functions and charity events..

 

on the ice..  I see Miller Leading..  I see Garland and OEL following and I also see EP learning all the right characteristics under those 3.

 

Our Leardership group is baby face - baby wash .

Get it back to its proper pecking order.. 

 

We need a Rooster.

 

chicken fail GIF

  • Haha 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

I dunno. He used to play in front a lot. Drove to the net a lot more in years past than he has in recent years. 

 

No .. he attempted to get to the net.

… even what your discribing is not the leadership quality a Captain should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

No .. he attempted to get to the net.

… even what your discribing is not the leadership quality a Captain should be.

I guess it depends on what you see in a captain. 

Näslund didn't get to the net often. But he was captain. 

 

Leaders lead in different ways, not everyone leads in a "canadian" way. whatever that means. Sometimes in a market like this, we have a &^@#ing hard one for a particular way of "leading". 

 

There are quiet leaders. There are rah rah leaders. Neither one is better, just different. 

 

Maybe I don't understand hockey culture as well as others, but there should be more than one way to lead as Cap, no? 

 

How do you understand how the Captain of an NHL team should be leading? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...