With all due respect, I think the consensus on this board that Miller is getting traded before the TDL and the Canucks aren't making the playoffs is highly premature

[RU SERIOUS]

32 minutes ago, DefCon1 said:

Dude NJ wont trade both Hughes for Miller

 

If they did, I would personally drive Miller to YVR and wait for the Hughes brothers.

...............if you need help, I have old RED shag carpet we could roll out for him.

[HockeyHarry]

5 hours ago, DefCon1 said:

Dude NJ wont trade both Hughes for Miller

 

If they did, I would personally drive Miller to YVR and wait for the Hughes brothers.

The point was Canucks aren’t given Miller away, and if they do end up trading him it would have to be a huge return. An offer Canucks couldn’t refuse.

[thrago]

On 1/30/2022 at 6:54 PM, Nave said:

I think it's definitely premature to think we can't make the playoffs. We're a resilient bunch. There are a bunch of teams we can leapfrog. Although I understand that people are down after that embarrassing loss to the Flames. 
Trading Miller is idiotic in my opinion. He's our best forward this season. The trade to get him was a steal. Trading him would just be going backwards. 

I know that people Love to have hope and all but it's projected we will need 98 points to squeak into the playoffs and as of today that means playing 740 hockey for the rest of the season.  We need the equivalent of 26 wins in 36 games, for reference we are 4-3-3 in our last ten. We lost 6 of 10 and we can only lose 10 more out of 36.  We had a chance briefly but our last 10 games pretty much ended it.   

[wai_lai416]

i dunno why people insist on keeping miller and being delusional we can make a cup run in the next couple of years. a lot of the flaws on this team is masked by great goaltending and somehow ppl here thinks we are one of the best defensive teams in the league when really we are not.. and have been bailed out by great goaltending.. 

 

but but we have a chance if we squeak into the playoffs?? no not really.. we avg less than 2.4 goals per game.. we have 0 offense from the secondary or defense.. in the playoffs they are going to focus even harder on the top lines... our PP is trash don't see that being fixed any time soon. our PK is slightly better but still horrible overall.. are we expecting demko to put up a shutout every game in the playoffs to win? 

 

ok great trade boeser EP horvat then and keep miller. ok so who's replacing those guys? they are struggling now but it's not like anyone you getting back in those trade will be an NHL ready player that's better? nor do we have anything in the farm that suggest they are ready to step up and replace any of those players in the top 6? we are struggling hard for offense but let's trade any one of those guys not named miller for a top 4 rhd or something and we'll be a contender? ok you get rid of boeser.. who the hell is playing with miller? pearson and garland? fiala?? doubt the wild make this trade anymore since fiala started to turn his season around. trade horvat? so who's taking all the big faceoff on this team? trade EP? ok sure what are we getting back that can provide immediate help to this team given most here thinks EP is a trash soft player. 

 

Pearson/halak ain't going anywhere this year unless they choose to. Dickinson even if u give him away for free no one will want. i have trouble seeing how any moves not named miller will help turn this team into anything remotely close to being a contender to even come close to convincing Miller to re-sign with the canucks when he knows he'll have a 8.5+ offer in the ufa with a us team.

 

ok so we get rid of one of boeser ep horvat or garland.. we are a fringe playoff team again next year fighting for a playoff spot.. so what do we do with miller at the TDL if there isn't an extension already? do you get rid of him? coz u ain't making the playoff for sure if u get rid of miller next year at the tdl and if u gotten rid of one o boeser ep horvat or garland this year. So instead of having say a schneider and a 1st or more for discussion sake we end up with a 1st + some prospect at next year tdl instead or even less if Miller struggles next year which is possible depending on who remains on the team for him to even play with. 

 

i rather trade miller for max return now then risk him not re-signing for a significantly less return next year and bank on EP Boeser having an off year this year. Even if they don't bounce back and we blow it up.. we would be on a much quicker rebuild with significant pieces already in place from a potential miller trade this year vs a potential miller trade next year if he doesn't want to re-sign and end up with a late 1st and some prospect that may or may not even make the nhl. 

 

if i'm miller.. there's absolutely no reason for him to re-sign mid season next year and not wait for UFA to see if there's any teams he likes that would offer him the 8.5+ contract... even if the canucks end up moving him at the TDL because he refuses to re-sign there's absolutely no harm for him as he'll get traded to a contender and he gets a chance to play for a cup. 

[Harold Drunken]

On 1/30/2022 at 1:53 PM, aGENT said:

We've got a young core to build around (Demko, Pettersson and Hughes, in its most distilled form). We aren't doing a rebuild (replacing a core) by moving those guys out and replacing them.

Rebuilding doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of your core. You can still tear things down and build around them as most teams do. When Ottawa started rebuilding they built around Chabot and Tkachuk - they moved the big contracts and veterans out from around them and injected youth (Norris, Formenton, Stutzle) and accumulated picks. Rebuilding often means keeping your young core and rebuilding around them which is still rebuilding a roster.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Harold Drunken said:

Rebuilding doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of your core. You can still tear things down and build around them as most teams do. When Ottawa started rebuilding they built around Chabot and Tkachuk - they moved the big contracts and veterans out from around them and injected youth (Norris, Formenton, Stutzle) and accumulated picks. Rebuilding often means keeping your young core and rebuilding around them which is still rebuilding a roster.

Rebuilding = replacing a core. So yeah, it kind of does. Ottawa moved out their old core (Karlsson, Hoffman, Stone etc) and is replacing them with Chabot, Tkachuck etc.

 

That doesn't mean some of those new core pieces won't overlap (see: Chabot, or Horvat here).

[iinatcc]

On 2/1/2022 at 5:53 PM, gurn said:

Calgary has 5 games in hand

Dallas has 3 games in hand- both are 2 points up already, so Canucks need 3 points to edge them out

 

Edmonton has 4 games in hand, and is a point up, so Canucks need two to edge them out

San Jose  has played the same amount of games, and have a 1 point lead, so two points needed to edge them out.

 

Winnipeg has 4 games in hand, while being 3 points behind.

 

These teams have a few games against each other, so one team is guaranteed to get points.

 

Tldr- play offs are possible but unlikely.

Yeah people seem to forget this. 

 

Also the Pacific teams have been picking it up again. 

 

Not saying Canucks have no chance making the playoffs but there isn't a realistic or plausible reason to hold out on any kind of hope.

 

Rutherford needs to sell what Benning built is a team of mediocrity. And no I'm not talking about heart or skill. Just the make up of the roster, asset management, and lack of depth. And a mediocre team could make the playoffs every odd season but not a consistent basis. 

[Harold Drunken]

20 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Rebuilding = replacing a core. So yeah, it kind of does. Ottawa moved out their old core (Karlsson, Hoffman, Stone etc) and is replacing them with Chabot, Tkachuck etc.

 

That doesn't mean some of those new core pieces won't overlap (see: Chabot, or Horvat here).

Agent, I know its awfully hard to convince you that you aren't always right, meaning you are human....but the term rebuilding does not state that it has to be replacing a core by definition. These are just the facts. If Jim traded everybody but Petey, Hughes and Demko and replaced the rest of the roster - are you saying that wouldn't be a rebuild because we kept 3 core players? Rebuilding = rebuilding a roster. Rebuilding does not = wiping the slate entirely clean and replacing everybody.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by Harold Drunken

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, Harold Drunken said:

Agent, I know its awfully hard to convince you that you aren't always right, meaning you are human....but the term rebuilding does not state that it has to be replacing a core by definition. These are just the facts. If Jim traded everybody but Petey, Hughes and Demko and replaced the rest of the roster - are you saying that wouldn't be a rebuild because we kept 3 core players? Rebuilding = rebuilding a roster. Rebuilding does not = wiping the slate entirely clean and replacing everybody.

 

 

I know it's awfully hard to convince you, you're usually wrong and misguided but... If the core's staying in tact, it's commonly understood to be a re-tool around said core. Not a rebuild. 

[Harold Drunken]

8 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I know it's awfully hard to convince you, you're usually wrong and misguided but... If the core's staying in tact, it's commonly understood to be a re-tool around said core. Not a rebuild. 

Lol, incorrect. A re-tool is adding a few players in key positions to change the trajectory of a team. All you are doing is stating an opinion and saying my opinion is correct and yours is wrong - much like a child but that's kinda what you do, isn't it?

 

Teams that rebuild often keep a few young, core players and build around them over the course of years acquiring other young players and using the draft to build the team.....dozens of teams have done it and continue to do so. I'd like to sit here and argue real life with you but it seems one of us lives in reality and one of us does not.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Harold Drunken

[aGENT]

24 minutes ago, Harold Drunken said:

Lol, incorrect. A re-tool is adding a few players in key positions to change the trajectory of a team. All you are doing is stating an opinion and saying my opinion is correct and yours is wrong - much like a child but that's kinda what you do, isn't it?

 

24 minutes ago, Harold Drunken said:

Teams that rebuild often keep a few young, core players and build around them over the course of years acquiring other young players and using the draft to build the team.....dozens of teams have done it and continue to do so. I'd like to sit here and argue real life with you but it seems one of us lives in reality and one of us does not.

Yup. Pretty apparent 

[alt kilgore]

16 minutes ago, Harold Drunken said:

Agent, I know its awfully hard to convince you that you aren't always right, meaning you are human....but the term rebuilding does not state that it has to be replacing a core by definition. These are just the facts. If Jim traded everybody but Petey, Hughes and Demko and replaced the rest of the roster - are you saying that wouldn't be a rebuild because we kept 3 core players? 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I know it's awfully hard to convince you, you're usually wrong and misguided but... If the core's staying in tact, it's commonly understood to be a re-tool around said core. Not a rebuild. 

 

Its hilarious, in a black humour way, how difficult it is to define just what Benning left the state of the team in.  Reflecting how the team was run so fickle for years.  A comedy of errors. One foot through the "rebuild" door, and one foot in the "retool" door. And one foot in his mouth. With Gillis it was terrible amateur scouting.  We trade that in for terrible pro scouting under Benning. And his "quick turnaround retool" turns into and "accidental rebuild" with high picks.  But Stubborn Jim wants to plow ahead every Summer with banning the word "rebuild", restocking on foundational plugs, and pretending we are on the cusp of playoffs each September, where "anything can happen" with the goal of fluking our way to a championship I guess?  Topping up the cap for years ahead with foundational vets, all but guaranteeing buy outs in the future. And re-starting yet another "quick turnaround".

 

Then indirectly because the abject failure of his confusing plan, comes Petey....then Hughes.. To the point that he couldn't start a proper rebuild even if he wanted to. But his bumbling around with no direction for the years before, and his delusional management, not developing new picks, or knowing how to scout, meant we couldn't take advantage of Petey and Hughes ELC years.  And his last spending spree will handcuff any new window we may have had in the immediate future.  Nice parting gift.   

 

What's disconcerting is that Benning continued with his philosophy to the bitter end, with one last orgy of spending to the cap, borrowing from future picks, including #1s, driving our prospects to the airport, saddling the team with a future cap problem with OEL, and setting up a huge headache for any new GM.  Benning is probably secretly happy he didn't have to actually attempt to clean it up. To the point we are living in this perpetual World of the Inbetween.  Where its difficult to move forward  without trading away a popular productive player or two, and having to replace them somehow...with no cap... and not too much on the farm. And just when we are entering Petey and Hughes prime years.

 

Anyways, good luck JR.   Now, even if everything goes right, and he pulls off a miracle, it means we will still suffer for another couple of seasons at minimum.  But its better than eight more years of confusion about defining just what management was doing I guess. 

 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, kilgore said:

 

 

Its hilarious, in a black humour way, how difficult it is to define just what Benning left the state of the team in.  Reflecting how the team was run so fickle for years.  A comedy of errors. One foot through the "rebuild" door, and one foot in the "retool" door. And one foot in his mouth. With Gillis it was terrible amateur scouting.  We trade that in for terrible pro scouting under Benning. And his "quick turnaround retool" turns into and "accidental rebuild" with high picks.  But Stubborn Jim wants to plow ahead every Summer with banning the word "rebuild", restocking on foundational plugs, and pretending we are on the cusp of playoffs each September, where "anything can happen" with the goal of fluking our way to a championship I guess?  Topping up the cap for years ahead with foundational vets, all but guaranteeing buy outs in the future. And re-starting yet another "quick turnaround".

 

Then indirectly because the abject failure of his confusing plan, comes Petey....then Hughes.. To the point that he couldn't start a proper rebuild even if he wanted to. But his bumbling around with no direction for the years before, and his delusional management, not developing new picks, or knowing how to scout, meant we couldn't take advantage of Petey and Hughes ELC years.  And his last spending spree will handcuff any new window we may have had in the immediate future.  Nice parting gift.   

 

What's disconcerting is that Benning continued with his philosophy to the bitter end, with one last orgy of spending to the cap, borrowing from future picks, including #1s, driving our prospects to the airport, saddling the team with a future cap problem with OEL, and setting up a huge headache for any new GM.  Benning is probably secretly happy he didn't have to actually attempt to clean it up. To the point we are living in this perpetual World of the Inbetween.  Where its difficult to move forward  without trading away a popular productive player or two, and having to replace them somehow...with no cap... and not too much on the farm. And just when we are entering Petey and Hughes prime years.

 

Anyways, good luck JR.   Now, even if everything goes right, and he pulls off a miracle, it means we will still suffer for another couple of seasons at minimum.  But its better than eight more years of confusion about defining just what management was doing I guess. 

 

That's the problem with building something, it never looks complete, until it is.

 

We'll never know what Benning's plan was to deal with the roster's issues as he's no longer here. Nor am I upset that we now have arguably one of this franchises most competent looking groups ever, in charge of seeing that through.

[alt kilgore]

Just now, aGENT said:

That's the problem with building something, it never looks complete, until it is.

 

We'll never know what Benning's plan was to deal with the roster's issues as he's no longer here. Nor am I upset that we now have arguably one of this franchises most competent looking groups ever, in charge of seeing that through.

 

Agreed.

 

But no way I'd like to see how he deals with his own latest mess.  Just based on how he dealt with his other messes in seasons past. Compounding problems on problems. He made one last desperate dealing spree, let loose by Aquilini, towards his perpetual goal of barely squeaking into the playoffs. When perhaps the prudent thing for the franchise would have been to allow the three he sent to Phoenix to play out their contracts here. Although I do like the Garland addition.  OEL i fear will, through no fault of his own, decline as he ages, and will become increasingly a weight on the cap. 

 

But then again, many teams have at least one bad contract to deal with.  OEL's is not going to cripple the team on its own. 

 

I will say one thing about Benning I did not mind. And that was his aggressiveness and his optimism.  He just didn't have the talent, or smarts, to pull it off. He was too inexperienced as a GM perhaps. He gambled many times, maybe never that one big "total rebuild" gamble when he first got here, but he tried with other chips on the table.  And who knows?  What if LE had actually worked with the twins? What if Gudbranson actually still had top pairing potential left? What if Virtanen actually had something between his ears?  What if we had a few of those yearly added vets actually play above their contract value instead of below?   In an alternative universe this all may have worked out.  But bottom line, the buck stops with who is in charge in this universe. 

 

Or one can simply blame Canuck Luck.  Which I can totally accept by now after decades of watching this team

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

 

Agreed.

 

But no way I'd like to see how he deals with his own latest mess.  Just based on how he dealt with his other messes in seasons past. Compounding problems on problems. He made one last desperate dealing spree, let loose by Aquilini, towards his perpetual goal of barely squeaking into the playoffs. When perhaps the prudent thing for the franchise would have been to allow the three he sent to Phoenix to play out their contracts here. Although I do like the Garland addition.  OEL i fear will, through no fault of his own, decline as he ages, and will become increasingly a weight on the cap. 

 

But then again, many teams have at least one bad contract to deal with.  OEL's is not going to cripple the team on its own. 

Just like the Miller trade before it, I have zero problem with the OEL/Garland trade.

 

Always add, always build.

 

We can likely sell Garland now for as much or more than what we paid for the whole package, if we choose (also like Miller). All while clearing dead to inefficient cap and replacing Edler with a 5 year younger, better skating version.

 

D tend to be productive until they're 34 (look at Edler at 35 with us) and that cap hit is likely approaching 2nd pair money that point (which he'll likely still be playing at). At worst, it's a bit inneficient for a year or so at the end   And it comes off, right in line with Hughes deal. A well managed club should be able to easily absorb that, as you noted.

 

And before his offensive production comes up, IMO that's a far more team and circumstantial issue than an OEL issue.

 

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

 

I will say one thing about Benning I did not mind. And that was his aggressiveness and his optimism.  He just didn't have the talent, or smarts, to pull it off. He was too inexperienced as a GM perhaps. He gambled many times, maybe never that one big "total rebuild" gamble when he first got here, but he tried with other chips on the table.  And who knows?  What if LE had actually worked with the twins? What if Gudbranson actually still had top pairing potential left? What if Virtanen actually had something between his ears?  What if we had a few of those yearly added vets actually play above their contract value instead of below?   In an alternative universe this all may have worked out.  But bottom line, the buck stops with who is in charge in this universe. 

He definitely had missteps along the way... I wouldn't have signed Player Name and said so before and after the signing. I also said we should have moved on from Virtanen when we should have...Imagine if we'd moved Virtanen + Gaudette for Bennett when I wanted us to lol. But getting Miller, Garland, OEL, Motte, Pearson...never mind drafting the majority of our core and some nice looking young support players...there's a lot of good there too.

 

[Run n Gun]

On 1/28/2022 at 3:31 PM, CanucksFan8353 said:

EDIT:  The Oilers fans were all on in the tanks and picks for years, and all it got them was a bubble playoff team and 1 round 2 game 7.  That strategy of tanking and trading hasn't worked out terribly well for them has it?

It helped that their management sucked for all those years, and continues to suck right now.

 

Plenty of teams "sucking" for a period and are true contenders now. Great management is key. I'm thanking our lucky stars that Benning is finally gone. 

[Russ]

6 points back with Calgary having 4 games in hand not to mention head to head 3 point games.  The odds aren't in the Canucks favors to make the playoffs no matter what you think.

[D-Money]

We made up so much ground during the winning streak because it coincided with losing streaks for a lot of teams we were chasing. But now that we’ve tapered off, and Calgary, Edmonton, Dallas, and Anaheim are playing over .500 again, there’s very little chance at the playoffs left, if any.

 

We really needed to beat Edmonton and Calgary in regulation. Getting 1 point in each of those games sounds ok, but giving them each 2 points was a huge loss.

 

[N4ZZY]

41 minutes ago, D-Money said:

We made up so much ground during the winning streak because it coincided with losing streaks for a lot of teams we were chasing. But now that we’ve tapered off, and Calgary, Edmonton, Dallas, and Anaheim are playing over .500 again, there’s very little chance at the playoffs left, if any.

 

We really needed to beat Edmonton and Calgary in regulation. Getting 1 point in each of those games sounds ok, but giving them each 2 points was a huge loss.

 

I kind of feel like the writing is on the wall for the Canucks. Too many games in hand for some of the teams that are above us. I just don’t see it. The last road trip was a success for a team that maybe didn’t have a bad start to the year and was behind the eight ball. Technically we’re not mathematically out of the playoffs, just yet. But the percentages are so low that we may as well be. 

 

I think it’s time to start selling some of our players to teams that are interested in our players - like Miller to the Rangers for a package or young roster players, prospects and picks. Boeser to another team, etc, etc. I love the guys on the team, but I want my Canucks to start contending more. Even if that means some of the players that I am emotionally connected to, get traded. I love Brock, I wish he would remain a Canuck, but he’s just a causality. He’s not that fast, and he’s pretty one dimensional. With that being said, this year seems to be one of those years where multiple players on our team are having a down year. Could next year be a rebound year where everyone seems to be having career years? Boeser trade could look really bad if it happens. 

 

[Harold Drunken]

11 hours ago, Russ said:

6 points back with Calgary having 4 games in hand not to mention head to head 3 point games.  The odds aren't in the Canucks favors to make the playoffs no matter what you think.

This isn't the place for logic and facts.....

 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Harold Drunken