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

[PGT] Vancouver Canucks at Florida Panthers | Jan. 11, 2022

Rate this topic


-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

Just now, Junkyard Dog said:

Doesn’t check the boxes Rutherford wants. In fact the type of trade it would take would be the complete opposite of what he’s stated. 

I'm thinking UFA, if he's willing to do something in the 6's. Long shot I know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mll said:

Boudreau would like another mobile puck moving D.

 

So would most other teams in the league 

 

Defense needs an upgrade and we don't currently have the cap/contract flex to do so

 

9 minutes ago, JM_ said:

 

I hear Dallas has a spare one.

 

Klingberg doesn't line up with what Rutherford's been saying regarding trades though 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

So would most other teams in the league 

 

Defense needs an upgrade and we don't currently have the cap/contract flex to do so

 

Klingberg doesn't line up with what Rutherford's been saying regarding trades though 

I'd like him as a UFA. Everyone is saying no chance he wants 8+ etc etc but we'll see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Alflives said:

We outshot them 44 to 26!  This loss is 100% on our goalie.  His save % was .808.  

In order for the Canucks to beat a team like Florida, they need bubble Demko in net.  Florida is too big, strong and talented for Demko to put in a below average performance and still win.  He wasn't the only one who played below average, Petey's entire line stunk, except for Pearson's fight, Bo couldn't get it in gear and Brock whiffed on some nice feeds.  I wish Bruce hadn't blendered the lines, I thought Petey, Garland and Podz had something going, and Miller on the third line worked harder, and was more successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I'd like him as a UFA. Everyone is saying no chance he wants 8+ etc etc but we'll see. 

Insiders I have heard from are stating he’s looking for around 63M x 8 years. 

 

He signed a bargain deal after his ELC that he quickly outplayed. Not surprising he’s looking to cash out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I'd like him as a UFA. Everyone is saying no chance he wants 8+ etc etc but we'll see. 

I dunno, I'm still of the opinion that we need to get younger on D and signing a guy who'll be 30 before next season doesn't help accomplish that. Having Hughes as the lone top 4 guy 25 or younger, and having nobody else in the system close to stepping into a top 4 role doesn't exactly encourage me about this team's future. 

 

I dunno what he'll be looking for regarding dollars, but I def see him wanting retirement deal style term. At the very least he'll be looking for a sizeable raise on the discount deal he gave Dallas. We just finally got rid of Player Name, I'm wary of committing to veterans long term. 

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

1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Insiders I have heard from are stating he’s looking for around 63M x 8 years. 

 

He signed a bargain deal after his ELC that he quickly outplayed. Not surprising he’s looking to cash out. 

outside of Vegas (if they had room) I just don't see that on the table for him. Its now going to be 7 years in all likelihood as well. I think its going to come in around  45 mil total value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I dunno, I'm still of the opinion that we need to get younger on D and signing a guy who'll be 30 before next season doesn't help accomplish that. Having Hughes as the lone top 4 guy 25 or younger, and having nobody else in the system close to stepping into a top 4 role doesn't exactly encourage me about this team's future. 

 

I dunno what he'll be looking for regarding dollars, but I def see him wanting retirement deal style term. At the very least he'll be looking for a sizeable raise on the discount deal he gave Dallas. We just finally got rid of Player Name, I'm wary of committing to veterans long term. 

I hear you, it's risky at the end of it. But what if we do end up moving Miller for an RFA right side d?

 

Hughes-RFA

OEL-Kingberg 

Rathbone-Myers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

If we fall out of the playoff picture and/or Rutherford decides to trade Miller a young player like Lundkvist out of New York would be a target if we wanted to add another dynamic puck-moving defenseman. 

Don't need to be a waterbug to move the puck. That said, I'd happily take both :lol:

 

Looks like one was sent down for the other today:

 

 

 

 

https://bluelinestation.com/2022/01/12/braden-schneider-fans-hes-new-york-rangers/

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JM_ said:

outside of Vegas (if they had room) I just don't see that on the table for him. Its now going to be 7 years in all likelihood as well. I think its going to come in around  45 mil total value. 

Given the calibre of player he is and money thrown around at D like Hamilton/Jones I think he could get around 8M. I see lots of teams interested in the off-season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I hear you, it's risky at the end of it. But what if we do end up moving Miller for an RFA right side d?

 

Hughes-RFA

OEL-Kingberg 

Rathbone-Myers 

I think it'd depend on the term and the dollar amount, there's a difference between signing someone til he's 34 and til he's 37. 

 

Klingberg might be able to produce well enough that while he may not be worth what he's being paid, it's passable, but for how long? His offensive numbers are still good, but he's questionable defensively, what good would an offensive D who's shaky defensively be if he's not producing enough to be worthwhile?

 

It's a risk, every UFA signing is because you're paying for past performances, but I'm wary of committing to guys in that 29-30 range long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Given the calibre of player he is and money thrown around at D like Hamilton/Jones I think he could get around 8M. I see lots of teams interested in the off-season. 

maybe... I don't see a lot of cap space out there. We could only do it if we move one of Miller or Boeser, and also Hamonic. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

I am really hoping for a huge rebound game.

At this point moral victories dont help.

A loss will further reduce our playoff chances.

They would have to run the table the remaining games to stay in it but that's a pretty tough feat considering folliwng 5 games are Carolina,Wshington, Nashville, Florida and StL which are all solid playoff teams

Eitherway, this will give JR more than enough info to figure out next steps

Based, on Boudreau & JR - making the playoffs is not the real goal but it would be a bonus.  The teams has important holes in the roster, and the draft is the cheapest way to acquire these talents.  Going the trade & FA route, is expensive.  

 

The Canucks, have very limited cap space and futures - hope JR can find the right balance to fill the holes in the roster internally.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

I think it'd depend on the term and the dollar amount, there's a difference between signing someone til he's 34 and til he's 37. 

 

Klingberg might be able to produce well enough that while he may not be worth what he's being paid, it's passable, but for how long? His offensive numbers are still good, but he's questionable defensively, what good would an offensive D who's shaky defensively be if he's not producing enough to be worthwhile?

 

It's a risk, every UFA signing is because you're paying for past performances, but I'm wary of committing to guys in that 29-30 range long term. 

if we keep going for OK players though we're still going to struggle against the best teams for the next few years. 

 

Watching FLA last night, and how they keep getting the puck up the ice so fast - thats that we need more of imo. More Hamonics aren't going to get us there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JM_ said:

if we keep going for OK players though we're still going to struggle against the best teams for the next few years. 

 

Watching FLA last night, and how they keep getting the puck up the ice so fast - thats that we need more of imo. More Hamonics aren't going to get us there. 

But what if we had 18 Hamonics? Surely we would have 6 in the lineup

  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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