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

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


Podzilla

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I don't particularly want Lundqvist though.  If we can flip him for something we can actually use, I'd be more open to it.

Fair enough, but is there any other RD in their system you'd want?  Obviously Fox is out of the equation, and I don't think Rags are going to offer both Laff and Schneider in the same deal.  I may be wrong, and I'd be a happy wrong if we do end up with both. 

 

Point is, I just see more superstar potential in Laff than Schneider, and I think that's the type of future potential we should be aiming for in a Miller return over a good steady No 2 3D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, T.Demko said:

Fair enough, but is there any other RD in their system you'd want?  Obviously Fox is out of the equation, and I don't think Rags are going to offer both Laff and Schneider in the same deal.  I may be wrong, and I'd be a happy wrong if we do end up with both. 

 

Point is, I just see more superstar potential in Laff than Schneider, and I think that's the type of future potential we should be aiming for in a Miller return over a good steady No 2 3D.

Not really, which is why not including Schneider is a non-starter for me.  There's more in their forward group to like.

Edited by King Heffy
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

I don't particularly want Lundqvist though.  If we can flip him for something we can actually use, I'd be more open to it.

Nothing wrong with Lundkvist. I'd certainly prefer Schneider (for the fit) but they're comparable levels of prospects. Different skill sets certainly, but their value is very similar.

 

Perhaps attaining Lundkvist allows us to move Rathbone to fill other holes (like the more two way, bigger RD we'd all like)?

 

Perhaps we move Lundkvist? Hell, perhaps we package them?

 

The important part is getting/having the pieces to move.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nothing wrong with Lundkvist. I'd certainly prefer Schneider (for the fit) but they're comparable levels of prospects. Different skill sets certainly, but their value is very similar.

 

Perhaps attaining Lundkvist allows us to move Rathbone to fill other holes (like the more two way, bigger RD we'd all like)?

 

Perhaps we move Lundkvist? Hell, perhaps we package them?

 

The important part is getting/having the pieces to move.

I'm just not a fan of his play style at all.  If we can move him for someone who is better defensively, I'm for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I'm just not a fan of his play style at all.  If we can move him for someone who is better defensively, I'm for it.

Meh, he'd be a great partner for OEL if new management can build out the rest of the D around them and Hughes. Get Hughes a real partner to take over post-Schenn, and a solid 3rd LD "McNabb" type and we're laughing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T.Demko said:

Fair enough, but is there any other RD in their system you'd want?  Obviously Fox is out of the equation, and I don't think Rags are going to offer both Laff and Schneider in the same deal.  I may be wrong, and I'd be a happy wrong if we do end up with both. 

 

Point is, I just see more superstar potential in Laff than Schneider, and I think that's the type of future potential we should be aiming for in a Miller return over a good steady No 2 3D.

I wonder if the Rangers would be interested in including both Laff and Schneider if we give them Miller at 50% retained + Rathbone.

 

Their LD is lacking a puck mover whereas we are lacking a young defenceman on RD.

 

In Rathbone, they get a mobile PMD who is PPG in the AHL. Could pair up with Trouba. And they still have Lundqvist on the bottom pairing.

 

We get an RD in Schneider who plays a safe game and knows how and when to jump up to chip in odd offence. Although he may not be a greatest puck mover there is, we have OEL and Hughes.

 

I also would like Laff over Schneider. Laff has potential to be a superstar in the league and surpass what Miller is now in a few years.

 

And as it happens, our LW depth is extremely thin. Our #1LW is Pearson, then Podkolzin, Highmore.

 

Laff would get the prime ice time here immediately to further develop his game. And his size and playmaking would compliment EP's game perfectly.

 

Laff-EP-Boeser

Podz-Horvat-Garland

Pearson-3C-Hoglander

Highmore-Lammikko-Motte

 

OEL-Myers

Hughes-Schenn

Hamonic-Schneider

 

If Dickinson is not the 3C we want, then we ned find a way to trade him and Poolman.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, khay said:

I wonder if the Rangers would be interested in including both Laff and Schneider if we give them Miller at 50% retained + Rathbone.

 

Their LD is lacking a puck mover whereas we are lacking a young defenceman on RD.

 

In Rathbone, they get a mobile PMD who is PPG in the AHL. Could pair up with Trouba. And they still have Lundqvist on the bottom pairing.

 

We get an RD in Schneider who plays a safe game and knows how and when to jump up to chip in odd offence. Although he may not be a greatest puck mover there is, we have OEL and Hughes.

 

I also would like Laff over Schneider. Laff has potential to be a superstar in the league and surpass what Miller is now in a few years.

 

And as it happens, our LW depth is extremely thin. Our #1LW is Pearson, then Podkolzin, Highmore.

 

Laff would get the prime ice time here immediately to further develop his game. And his size and playmaking would compliment EP's game perfectly.

 

Laff-EP-Boeser

Podz-Horvat-Garland

Pearson-3C-Hoglander

Highmore-Lammikko-Motte

 

OEL-Myers

Hughes-Schenn

Hamonic-Schneider

 

If Dickinson is not the 3C we want, then we ned find a way to trade him and Poolman.

 

 

Id be all for 50% retained on Miller if it gave us both Laff and Schneider in the deal... however I'm not sure if it is incentive enough for Rags to give up 2 of their top blue chips.  I just have a hard time seeing them part with both.

 

Also, I dont want Rathbone to be used as a sweetener... yet.  Id like to see what we have in him before making further assessment.  He definitely has the offensive potential.  I get there is a bit of an overlap with Hughes, but we could probably pump his value up a bit in the next 2 years and get a real asset back in a position we lack, maybe for a 2nd pairing steady RD or an elite 3C.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, T.Demko said:

Id be all for 50% retained on Miller if it gave us both Laff and Schneider in the deal... however I'm not sure if it is incentive enough for Rags to give up 2 of their top blue chips.  I just have a hard time seeing them part with both.

 

Also, I dont want Rathbone to be used as a sweetener... yet.  Id like to see what we have in him before making further assessment.  He definitely has the offensive potential.  I get there is a bit of an overlap with Hughes, but we could probably pump his value up a bit in the next 2 years and get a real asset back in a position we lack, maybe for a 2nd pairing steady RD or an elite 3C.

If Miller alone gets us Laff or Schneider but not both, and if adding Rathbone gets us both Laff and Schneider, then I'd say that qualifies as getting a real asset back for Rathbone.

 

Perhaps the only position of strength for us is PMD on the left side with OEL, Hughes, and Rathbone. 

 

I think Laff would look great on our team. He'd be a #1LW to play with Petey for the next decade.

 

But I do agree on Rathbone having more potential. But similarly to how Schneider doesn't have ice time to grow on NYR behind Fox and Trouba, Rathbone might not have access to ice time needed to grow here behind OEL and Hughes.

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, T.Demko said:

Hey, if the Rags are offering that, I'll chase JT Miller out myself.  That's a heck of a deal.  I'm fine with Lundqvist in that over Schneider, I still think we get the upper hand in the long run.

 

The ones I do not want is Kappo or Krav.  Yuck.

What’s the problem with Kappo? He’s big and started playing in NHL when he was 18 and the numbers get better every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, coryberg said:

"I'm playing with this team and this is where I'm trying to get wins with these guys" 

 

Definitely sounds like he is being a good soldier and playing out his contract.

I listened to the interview on the podcast and tried to be unbiased as possible. It sounded like there was very little desire to stay a Canuck after his contract to me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

I listened to the interview on the podcast and tried to be unbiased as possible. It sounded like there was very little desire to stay a Canuck after his contract to me.

Ok, this pains me to say because I think you ALL know where I stand with this... but hearing JT Miller in that interview, I don't hear commitment in his voice or his tone at all.  You even got the long pause before he spoke.  Ugh... this is coming from ME... one of the biggest supporters of keeping Miller, but man, that did NOT sound like a player that wants to stay here long term. 

 

Let the trade proposals happen... I'm on board guys.  :mellow:

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Huggy Bear 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Ok, this pains me to say because I think you ALL know where I stand with this... but hearing JT Miller in that interview, I don't hear commitment in his voice or his tone at all.  You even got the long pause before he spoke.  Ugh... this is coming from ME... one of the biggest supporters of keeping Miller, but man, that did NOT sound like a player that wants to stay here long term. 

 

Let the trade proposals happen... I'm on board guys.  :mellow:

 

Just now, Gawdzukes said:

And @HKSR and his interpretation in 3.2.1 proclaiming this is J.T. committing his future to Vancouver. :lol:

 

He's basically paving his way out of Van with that one. :frantic:

You missed my post above @Gawdzukes -_-

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...