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

(discussion) If it meant we can keep Miller, what would you pay to move Hamonic and Pearson?


JM_

Recommended Posts

So lets assume Miller likes it here, and is open to making a deal on an extension July 1. We then need cap space.

 

I don't believe we can move Pearson without retention, and that doesn't help. Hamonic is weird, and he'll cost us to move, imo.

 

So, with the premise we do it to keep Miller, what are you willing to pay to make cap space?

 

I'd also sit Halak for the rest of this year if he's unwilling to move. Its the deal he signed, so I don't care if he doesn't like it. Its what he agreed to.

 

Pearson - 3.25

Hamonic - 3.0

Halak's bonus - 1.25

 

Thats more than enough to keep Miller at market value and maybe even add a bit to the defence. 

 

I'd be willing to part with a 2023 2nd to ditch Hamonic. Pearson and our 3rd this year. Is that enough to clear the contracts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in paying other teams to acquire our players.  

 

I don't see Miller here long-term so I'd explore that route. 

 

We need to stockpile young quality prospects, young roster players, and draft picks. Potentially moving guys like Miller/Garland/BB does this as well as builds in cap flexibility as JR has been saying he needs for some time now.

 

If a hockey deal can be made so be it, but if it's JR paying to jettison contracts, no thanks.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

I'm not interested in paying other teams to acquire our players.  

 

I don't see Miller here long-term so I'd explore that route. 

 

We need to stockpile young quality prospects, young roster players, and draft picks. Potentially moving guys like Miller/Garland/BB does this as well as builds in cap flexibility as JR has been saying he needs for some time now.

 

If a hockey deal can be made so be it, but if it's JR paying to jettison contracts, no thanks.

right, but the premise here is that he and Rutherford come to an extension agreement.

 

Benning left us with some hard to move, meh contracts. It is what it is. 

 

With cap space at a premium I don't see how we make room for our best talent is possible.

 

The team has a core now, prospects are great but now we're talking about kicking the window down the road a few years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only term that makes sense for the Canucks is Miller on a 4 year, say... $8m deal. IMO that's not a remotely realistic term or cap hit he'd be willing to sign at, if he's even interested in staying (which I also have doubts).

 

We need to rip the band aid off, sell high and build for our window.

 

 

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JM_ said:

So lets assume Miller likes it here, and is open to making a deal on an extension July 1. We then need cap space.

 

I don't believe we can move Pearson without retention, and that doesn't help. Hamonic is weird, and he'll cost us to move, imo.

 

So, with the premise we do it to keep Miller, what are you willing to pay to make cap space?

 

I'd also sit Halak for the rest of this year if he's unwilling to move. Its the deal he signed, so I don't care if he doesn't like it. Its what he agreed to.

 

Pearson - 3.25

Hamonic - 3.0

Halak's bonus - 1.25

 

Thats more than enough to keep Miller at market value and maybe even add a bit to the defence. 

 

I'd be willing to part with a 2023 2nd to ditch Hamonic. Pearson and our 3rd this year. Is that enough to clear the contracts? 

I'm not sure why they'd want to move Pearson, he's a glue guy, imo

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stawns said:

I'm not sure why they'd want to move Pearson, he's a glue guy, imo

declining production, overpaid and too much term. If its a decision between shedding Pearson and keeping Miller, thats a no-brainer to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

The only term that makes sense for the Canucks is Miller on a 4 year, say... $8m deal. IMO that's not a remotely realistic term or cap hit he'd be willing to sign at, if he's even interested in staying (which I also have doubts).

 

We need to rip the band aid off, still high and build for our window.

 

we have 4 more years of Demko. How far down the road is this new window?

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The future success of this team will be with guys like Pettersson, Hughes, Demko, Podkolzin, etc.  

 

Miller is ready to help a team win a Cup now, Canucks aren't there. Trade him for the moon, help set up Petey and the boys for years to come.

 

I don't want to give the grumpy sourpuss $8 for the next 5-8 years, no thanks.  

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JM_ said:

right, but the premise here is that he and Rutherford come to an extension agreement.

 

Benning left us with some hard to move, meh contracts. It is what it is. 

 

With cap space at a premium I don't see how we make room for our best talent is possible.

 

The team has a core now, prospects are great but now we're talking about kicking the window down the road a few years. 

As I mentioned,  I don't see Miller here long-term and it's virtually guaranteed he's not going so sign a 2 or 3 year extension. 

 

Imo were sorely missing an oft overlooked,  but absolutely key core piece - a physical,  mobile,  top 2 right side defenceman capable of logging high minutes in all situations.   Miller should be leveraged to acquire this piece. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

As I mentioned,  I don't see Miller here long-term and it's virtually guaranteed he's not going so sign a 2 or 3 year extension. 

 

Imo were sorely missing an oft overlooked,  but absolutely key core piece - a physical,  mobile,  top 2 right side defenceman capable of logging high minutes in all situations.   Miller should be leveraged to acquire this piece. 

but what if no one is willing to do that? 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to keep Miller is that you intend to be contending next year.   If you want to contend, you can't replace Hamonic and Pearson with entry-level rookies.  Therefore, you would have to go to free agency to fill these void and end up paying them the same amount of Pearson and Hamonic.   Even if they are small upgrade over them is that worth paying a 2nd and 3rd to move them?  I don't think so.

 

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, flickyoursedin said:

Maybe Arizona will take some more bad contracts for another top 10 pick lol. I’m not really interested in giving up more futures to get rid of contracts. We have a bottom 5 prospect pool in the league currently. 

just don't see any other options, assuming we want to keep Miller. 

 

I'm not talking about moving a 1st, but no one's going to take our expensive meh for free. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timberz21 said:

If you want to keep Miller is that you intend to be contending next year.   If you want to contend, you can't replace Hamonic and Pearson with entry-level rookies.  Therefore, you would have to go to free agency to fill these void and end up paying them the same amount of Pearson and Hamonic.   Even if they are small upgrade over them is that worth paying a 2nd and 3rd to move them?  I don't think so.

 

 

I don't think so. There have been some great bargain contracts with the covid flat cap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

2-7 years. Hughes and Petey's primes.

 

Either we extend Demko, or we replace him with Silovs or whoever.

I guess I don't believe in the massive return scenario the more I look at Miller trade scenarios. I'm also not convinced that Miller doesn't fit most of that window. 

 

I'd also like to see what we can do once we shed the middle-meh deals. 

 

 

Edited by JM_
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

If you want to keep Miller is that you intend to be contending next year.   If you want to contend, you can't replace Hamonic and Pearson with entry-level rookies.  Therefore, you would have to go to free agency to fill these void and end up paying them the same amount of Pearson and Hamonic.   Even if they are small upgrade over them is that worth paying a 2nd and 3rd to move them?  I don't think so.

 

 

This.

 

10 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

As I mentioned,  I don't see Miller here long-term and it's virtually guaranteed he's not going so sign a 2 or 3 year extension. 

 

Imo were sorely missing an oft overlooked,  but absolutely key core piece - a physical,  mobile,  top 2 right side defenceman capable of logging high minutes in all situations.   Miller should be leveraged to acquire this piece. 

And definitely this @JM_

 

We have very real upcoming structural issues coming up on defense. Hamonic is done next year. As is Schenn. Myers the year after. None of whom are remotely long term, top 4 solutions regardless. Some of whom aren't NOW realistically, and certainly not on a contender.

 

If you start giving $3-4m raises too retain Miller, how do propose we afford to replace them? We won't have the cap space to sign UFA's. If you don't trade Miller you're not getting young ones like Schneider in return.

 

Keeping Miller means we don't get a contender level, right side D. And we keep up the same tired, poorly built good enough to be playoff team but not actually win, awful tradition this team has always done. No thanks.

 

THAT is kicking it down the road @JM_.

 

Build it. Build it properly. Focus everything on making the best, deepest team it can be 2-7 years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I don't think so. There have been some great bargain contracts with the covid flat cap. 

Yeah, guys like Corey Perry who went to play for a powerhouse like Tampa,

 

But you also got guys like Goodrow and Coleman who signed for much more than Pearson and have the same production. 

 

It's a gamble, signing a guy for cheap is easy, signing a guy for cheap that will produce overproduce is another thing.  Doesn't mean it will pan out.    Pearson have been a 0.50 PPG guy in 4 years with Vancouver.  He had a down year last year (in tough conditions), but otherwise been pretty consistent and at 3.25M$ is pretty decent.

  • Cheers 1
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...