Miller is a core player

[N4ZZY]

On 12/23/2021 at 3:24 PM, Alienhuggyflow said:

How the hell am I overating prospects.

Klimovich, Woo and Lockwood are virtually locks to make it, in what role is TBD.

 

I find the fact you think JT is to old at 30 to be part of the core, how long have you been following hockey? A simple search will show you the average age of cup winners is 30.

I guess Sid, Malkin, Stamkos and on and on and on are to old as well.

No team has ever won a cup with an average age of 25 but teams win all the time with a mix of age groups.

You are also way off on what JT will get especially if he signs for 6+ years. Adding extra years past the age of 35 are often given to lower the cap hit. 7-7.5 on a 7 year deal would make sense but even at 8-8.5 that's 2.5-3 million that would be needed since the cap will be up 2 million and Holtbys buyout Loungos penalty and  Halaks bonuses will be off the book the latter being replaced  replaced by an elc they can re-sign him without making any moves. 

 

You realize Hamonic will be off the books and Pearson and Dickenson will have one season left right? .

The fact you think those contracts are a negative, agsin tells me you are the type that thinks only under 25 have value.

Guys like Pearson and Dickenson are always coveted, especially on contracts with 1 year left.

You really should look around and see for yourself how often those types are traded for.

As for Hoglander unless he becomes a 60 point player next season he probably gets bridged.

The cap is expected to go back to pre- pandemic estimates  for the 2024-2025 season which even before the new TV deal was expected to be close to 90 million. Gary has already said as much.

I don't mean to be rude but if you think that if the team is a contender in 18 months and Bo, Brock and JT want to stay and JR won't be able to clear or will choose to let them walk instead of moving out players that aren't as important then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Every year with some people it's all doom and gloom yet every year GMS manage to find the cap to keep the players they prioritize.

 

Ps. Nobody will care if the last few years of JTs contract sucks if he ends being part of a team that wins a cup.

Every GM uses term on the older guys to lower the cap hit.

But na let's let our best forward and leader leave, since ppg all situation players are easy to replace and won't help win a cup since only players under 25 do that.

 

 

 

 

I’d love for JT to remain a Canuck. I’m more curious about how it’s going to work. Will he prefer term more than the money? Or will he want more money and less term? Or both? Because if he hits free agency, he’s probably going to be able to get both. Something the Canucks might not be able to offer. And if they do offer that, what happens to Bo, and Brock? 

[IBatch]

11 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

I’d love for JT to remain a Canuck. I’m more curious about how it’s going to work. Will he prefer term more than the money? Or will he want more money and less term? Or both? Because if he hits free agency, he’s probably going to be able to get both. Something the Canucks might not be able to offer. And if they do offer that, what happens to Bo, and Brock? 

Yep.   It's such a catch 22.   You need guys to become stars, but once they do it costs you bottom six depth or quality third pairing defenseman to make it work.   Funny thing is, doesn't take a capoligist to see where Benning was going with this.   Luongo's recapture covers Brock's raise, the cap going up would have covered both Horvats and Miller's.   The fact he didn't leave anything to spare is/was his greatest failure.   Pearson can be traded so that would save us 2ish (and we'd likely get weaker on the left side).    JV/Holtby gone will help too.   Rutherford and the next GM will have their work cut out trying to figure this out.   Think the best value of Miller is just enjoying the mini-window we have now, and make the playoffs the next two seasons so the guys get experience.   If we do well maybe the team as a group will be ok with taking less then market value.   Lol that's a bit of a fantasy but it has happened.    Players usually take the money every single time.  

[grandmaster]

If we had to choose one of Bo, Brock or Miller to go, I would regrettably let Brock go.
 

- Bo is the captain and has performed better in clutch situations than Brock 

 

- several other members of the team can fit in Brock’s play style while no one can fit into Millers.

 

- Brock’s upcoming contract is a bit rich versus his production

 

Maybe a deadline trade for the Canucks to get a 1st?

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

God love Brock, he's probably the guy out of the three you'd move. That first big Rutherford move might be a pretty ruthless one...

[N4ZZY]

9 hours ago, IBatch said:

Yep.   It's such a catch 22.   You need guys to become stars, but once they do it costs you bottom six depth or quality third pairing defenseman to make it work.   Funny thing is, doesn't take a capoligist to see where Benning was going with this.   Luongo's recapture covers Brock's raise, the cap going up would have covered both Horvats and Miller's.   The fact he didn't leave anything to spare is/was his greatest failure.   Pearson can be traded so that would save us 2ish (and we'd likely get weaker on the left side).    JV/Holtby gone will help too.   Rutherford and the next GM will have their work cut out trying to figure this out.   Think the best value of Miller is just enjoying the mini-window we have now, and make the playoffs the next two seasons so the guys get experience.   If we do well maybe the team as a group will be ok with taking less then market value.   Lol that's a bit of a fantasy but it has happened.    Players usually take the money every single time.  

I think the team has to be a contender in order for some of the players to take “hometown discounts”. They will still want to be paid, of course, but if some our stars can take less to have the greatest chance to win, then that’ll bring us to probably contender status, because we would have room to add other quality pieces to the team surround the core with better depth. It’s what made the 2011 team so special and unique. Kesler could have made so much more money, but took less to win. So did the Sedins. And Burr too, and on and on it went. 

 

Do we have characters and personalities like that on this current team? 

 

I can’t really see Miller taking less. He’s been underpaid pretty much his whole career. I think he’d want to get paid this time around, which is unfortunate for the Canucks, since I can’t see how we can afford what he’d be asking for. It’s going to be over 7-7.5M for sure. Are we comfortable giving JT 8M or more for 6-7 years? 

 

[aGENT]

This "players over 30" argument is just goofy.

 

You actually win with predominately 25-30 year old players. Yes, you can have some guys in to their early-mid 30's, ideally with deals they signed in their mid-late 20's (or shorter term, more recent deals). Miller would need to be on an expensive, long term, retirement deal, STARTING at age 30.

 

These are clearly not the same things.

 

Most of our core isn't even in that window yet. We're like 2 years away +/- from our core being in that aged 25-30, contention window. Our "30 year old" guys are likely to be guys like Horvat in 2-7 years (if we're lucky even a few years past that) from now. In 7 years, in that window, Miller will be turning 36. That's bad math.

 

It's just a bad idea for us to give him that retirement deal now. We're far better off keeping our younger core pieces and supplementing them in those 2-7 years, with the massive trade return we'd get for moving Miller. Let some other team, whose window is already open, make that deal.