spook007 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 hour ago, JM_ said: well, sometimes you do though. Not a team of them, but a select few guys do earn that. Sedins were almost 31 when they played for SC against the Bruins... Glad we didn't trade them away... Just saying. I do however think, we need to to do something, to shake it up. I love this team but with EP and Boeser playing below par, we are going nowhere. In saying this, we all know what they can do, and they won't fetch, what they should atm (look at how Laf, a former 1st OA is being valued), so it limits our options to change it up. So despite loving Miller, he seems to be the odd man out, or at least the piece that can give us something to build on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 2 hours 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. Miller leaving also leaves a massive hole in the middle of the line up. We do need a D-man like you described desperately, but.... lets not forget the other parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 13 minutes ago, aGENT said: I said near $10m. And in the shorter +/-4 year term we'd need, for it to REMOTELY make sense for us to extend him, yes we're likely looking at +/-$9.5m IMO. And that all but guarantees we don't improve our defense. At least not until he's off the books. Your basically committing to the same, stagnant team we have now (worse actually, as with your plan we're also both paying futures to shed cap elsewhere, AND jettisoning contributing roster players), that's already not good enough, and not fixing the defense for 4+ years. While having less assets it shore it up along the way because you spent then clearing cap. To pay a soon to be declining, mid 30's, eventual 3rd liner, near $10m. Think about this critically. Does THAT sound like a good plan, to you? I hate to use the term "replacement player" but Hamonic and Pearson kind of fit that bill now. Pearson has been spotty this year, that might be the new normal with him. So I don't see losing them as any big deal, tbh. I guess without Miller, I see us as such a soft F group. That Calgary game showed just how much we need an answer to that. My idea isn't to be stagnant, its to shed our more ineffective contracts (or in Halaks case, just sit him to gain 1.25 mil in cap). You're betting Miller will decline, but thats not certain. Neither is Schneider working out to be a top pairing RHD, thats a long shot too. Trading Miller can't be our only option to improve. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 4 minutes ago, spook007 said: Sedins were almost 31 when they played for SC against the Bruins... Glad we didn't trade them away... Just saying. I do however think, we need to to do something, to shake it up. I love this team but with EP and Boeser playing below par, we are going nowhere. In saying this, we all know what they can do, and they won't fetch, what they should atm (look at how Laf, a former 1st OA is being valued), so it limits our options to change it up. So despite loving Miller, he seems to be the odd man out, or at least the piece that can give us something to build on. that remains to be seen tho. Shedding him just for prospects and picks is a bad idea, imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, JM_ said: that remains to be seen tho. Shedding him just for prospects and picks is a bad idea, imo. I agree 100% on that... I think a good RHD-man to grow with the team is essential, but also think we need a top Centre prospect at least to go with this... I'm not sold on the picks garbage. A late 1st round pick is not on top of the agenda... I don't care, how useless MG was, but seeing, what we got out of late 1st rd picks has made me less of a believer in striking gold at the end of 1st round. So to me its a RHD D-prospect and a good Centre-prospect (or a solid player 2nd -3rd line around 25-26 years of age).. if we get a first as well fine... (Miller was a third line player for Tampa)... We speak about our core players, but half of CDC are willing to trade Petey, Brock, Bo etc., so are they really worth trying too build around? I think yes, but we could also end up with egg on our faces if it turns out they are not going to find their mojo again.... Edited February 2, 2022 by spook007 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 3 minutes ago, JM_ said: I hate to use the term "replacement player" but Hamonic and Pearson kind of fit that bill now. Pearson has been spotty this year, that might be the new normal with him. So I don't see losing them as any big deal, tbh. We don't even know what we do or don't have with Hamonic unfortunately. And I'd happily move him if it doesn't cost us. But I'd wager it's better than 'replacement' if he's healthy and up to speed. Pearson is definitely better than 'replacement' But replacing them with lesser players doesn't improve us (likely makes us worse) when we're already not good enough, AND costs us assets, in your plan, that might improve us. Double whammy. 3 minutes ago, JM_ said: I guess without Miller, I see us as such a soft F group. That Calgary game showed just how much we need an answer to that. We need more players like Miller. Just not Miller specifically. 3 minutes ago, JM_ said: My idea isn't to be stagnant, its to shed our more ineffective contracts (or in Halaks case, just sit him to gain 1.25 mil in cap). But that's what your plan does. Bleeding assets, depth and cap space, desperately clinging to a team that's not good enough. Management is trying to make Vancouver a destination players WANT to come to. Playing hardball with Halak is the opposite of that. I'm all for moving him to a contender if that's agreeable but hard ball is not going to happen. 3 minutes ago, JM_ said: You're betting Miller will decline, but thats not certain. Neither is Schneider working out to be a top pairing RHD, thats a long shot too. Nothing is guaranteed in life or sports. But the probabilities suggest Miller declines around 32. We saw it happen with the Sedins, it happens everywhere to almost every player, on every team, around the league. The statistics clearly show it does. Could Miller be an outlier? Maybe. But that's a poor gamble to take, with bad odds, on a team that can't afford to get that wrong. That's not a plan. That's a fingers crossed gamble. Does Rutherford strike you as that type of person? 3 minutes ago, JM_ said: Trading Miller can't be our only option to improve. Only? Nope. Best? Most logical?... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 23 minutes ago, spook007 said: Sedins were almost 31 when they played for SC against the Bruins... Glad we didn't trade them away... Just saying. And with all respect to them and loving the fact they retired as Canucks and was all for it at the time... With hindsight, If we'd traded them in the last year of their 2nd to last deals, and not extended them, our window likely could have remained open longer than the 3 or so years it was, due to them peaking so late. Instead we committed $7m X2 to declining 33 year olds... And as much as I love Miller, he's no bloody Sedin. 9 minutes ago, spook007 said: I'm not sold on the picks garbage. I keep seeing people post this... Nowhere have I read anyone suggesting that picks should be the sole or even main part of any return. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 20 minutes ago, spook007 said: I agree 100% on that... I think a good RHD-man to grow with the team is essential, but also think we need a top Centre prospect at least to go with this... I'm not sold on the picks garbage. A late 1st round pick is not on top of the agenda... I don't care, how useless MG was, but seeing, what we got out of late 1st rd picks has made me less of a believer in striking gold at the end of 1st round. So to me its a RHD D-prospect and a good Centre-prospect (or a solid player 2nd -3rd line around 25-26 years of age).. if we get a first as well fine... (Miller was a third line player for Tampa)... We speak about our core players, but half of CDC are willing to trade Petey, Brock, Bo etc., so are they really worth trying too build around? I think yes, but we could also end up with egg on our faces if it turns out they are not going to find their mojo again.... the other thing about Miller is he's a known quantity. We're still wondering what Brock might be, e.g. But you're 100% right, if we move Miller we need C depth back too. Thats why when I see the packages people are proposing back for Miller, I just have my doubts a team will return all that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 minute ago, aGENT said: And with all respect to them and loving the fact they retired as Canucks and was all for it at the time... With hindsight, If we'd traded them in the last year of their 2nd to last deals, and not extended them, our window likely could have remained open longer than the 3 or so years it was, due to them peaking so late. Instead we committed $7m X2 to declining 33 year olds... Agree to a certain extend... Don't think we'd find anyone willing to sign 2 Sedins at 12M and they did not want to waive, so we could have just let them walk but chose to run a little further with them... How they fell over a cliff edge was not quite expected. 1 minute ago, aGENT said: And as much as I love Miller, he's no bloody Sedin. Of course not... We are talking future Hall of Famers 1 minute ago, aGENT said: I keep seeing people post this... Nowhere have I read anyone suggesting that picks should be the sole or even main part of any return. It was response to thew JM's post... there has been lots of proposals where folks are speaking about 1st rd pick as part of the package. If we get a 1st its fine, but that is not so interesting to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 15 minutes ago, aGENT said: We don't even know what we do or don't have with Hamonic unfortunately. And I'd happily move him if it doesn't cost us. But I'd wager it's better than 'replacement' if he's healthy and up to speed. Even if thats true, someone has to go if we're getting a RHD back. He's the best option to ditch. 15 minutes ago, aGENT said: Pearson is definitely better than 'replacement' But replacing them with lesser players doesn't improve us (likely makes us worse) when we're already not good enough, AND costs us assets, in your plan, that might improve us. Double whammy. small whammy, imo. He's OK. Certainly no shortage of top 9 guys out there. 15 minutes ago, aGENT said: We need more players like Miller. Just not Miller specifically. But that's what your plan does. Bleeding assets, depth and cap space, desperately clinging to a team that's not good enough. but Benning kind of left us in that position, those contracts will cost us to move. Say you're right and we get Schnider for Miller. Who's our 2C next year... Dowling? There's value in known qualities in the NHL. We know what Miller is. Imperfect, sure. A legit 2C, yup. 15 minutes ago, aGENT said: Management is trying to make Vancouver a destination players WANT to come to. Playing hardball with Halak is the opposite of that. I'm all for moving him to a contender if that's agreeable but hard ball is not going to happen. Halak agreed to that deal, its not hardball, its what he agreed to and its an option for us if he refuses to budge. It is what it is. 15 minutes ago, aGENT said: Nothing is guaranteed in life or sports. But the probabilities suggest Miller declines around 32. We saw it happen with the Sedins, it happens everywhere to almost every player, on every team, around the league. The statistics clearly show it does. Could Miller be an outlier? Maybe. But that's a poor gamble to take, with bad odds, on a team that can't afford to get that wrong. That's not a plan. That's a fingers crossed gamble. Does Rutherford strike you as that type of person? Only? Nope. Best? Most logical?... I do think JR likes his veterans, yes. Just don't know which one of ours he likes. If a true top RHD isn't coming back, I don't want to shed Miller before we pay a bit to move out someone like Hamonic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 5 minutes ago, spook007 said: Agree to a certain extend... Don't think we'd find anyone willing to sign 2 Sedins at 12M and they did not want to waive, so we could have just let them walk but chose to run a little further with them... How they fell over a cliff edge was not quite expected. If we moved them at the TDL it would have been closer to 1/4 of that or roughly $3m at the TDL. And we could have retained 50%. 5 minutes ago, spook007 said: Of course not... We are talking future Hall of Famers It was response to thew JM's post... there has been lots of proposals where folks are speaking about 1st rd pick as part of the package. If we get a 1st its fine, but that is not so interesting to me... Well yeah, chances are there's likely a pick in the package. But it's like you're getting a Ferrari and you're worried about the tires being used 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 42 minutes ago, spook007 said: Miller leaving also leaves a massive hole in the middle of the line up. We do need a D-man like you described desperately, but.... lets not forget the other parts. they move Miller and Boeser and they'll have plenty of dough to sign a good #2-3 centre in the off season. Lammiko has been a very welcome surprise as a #4 centre, so they're not as desperate as they'd be without him. I'd also expect a young C coming back in a deadline deal, likely as part of a Miller deal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 minute ago, stawns said: they move Miller and Boeser and they'll have plenty of dough to sign a good #2-3 centre in the off season. unless there's a bidding war. Or the guy doesn't want to play in Canada. Lots of thing can derail UFA plans. here's the list of UFA C's as of now: https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/free-agents/2023/points/all/center/ufa Who do you think we're landing thats going to be as good and also cheaper than Miller? 1 minute ago, stawns said: Lammiko has been a very welcome surprise as a #4 centre, so they're not as desperate as they'd be without him. I'd also expect a young C coming back in a deadline deal, likely as part of a Miller deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 hour ago, J.I.A.H.N said: The next thing I would do is send Hamonic packing for non performance or breach of contract, this Covid thing could go on for years, and we are throwing 3 Million away, for him to stay home with his kids. Sorry, but it is time to start playing hard ball. If not that, then an agreement for mutual voiding of the contract. It is OK to be a nice guy, but this Hamonic issue is becoming ridiculous. Hamonic is on IR, it has nothing to do with COVID or his family. He suffered a lower body injury against BOS in Dec, otherwise he'd be with the club is my understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 minute ago, JM_ said: Even if thats true, someone has to go if we're getting a RHD back. He's the best option to ditch. Nobody 'has' to go. At least not this year. Otherwise, I don't disagree. I'd happily move on from Hamonic as he's basically been MIA. Even if he is back next year, I'd expect we move him next TDL as he's expiring. And he'll have actual value as a rental next TDL. I'd happily shed Poolman as well. But not at a cost. Middling to almost no return or better fitting player at similar cap? Sure. 1 minute ago, JM_ said: small whammy, imo. He's OK. Certainly no shortage of top 9 guys out there. Disagree. Pearson is better than he gets credit for and then you're also spending assets, bleeding depth, committing cap to declining assets and risking opportunity costs. 1 minute ago, JM_ said: but Benning kind of left us in that position, those contracts will cost us to move. None of those guys are Player Name-esque turds. They may not return much/anything but they shouldn't cost to move. As they come up, they actually have value as TDL rentals. 1 minute ago, JM_ said: Say you're right and we get Schnider for Miller. Who's our 2C next year... Dowling? Pettersson. Horvat, Pettersson, UFA/trade (Paul, Tierney, Sturm, Compher etc) Lammiko. Maybe a young 2 or 3C is part of Boeser trade as well? 1 minute ago, JM_ said: There's value in known qualities in the NHL. We know what Miller is. Imperfect, sure. A legit 2C, yup. Precisely why Miller is worth what he's worth in trade. 1 minute ago, JM_ said: Halak agreed to that deal, its not hardball, its what he agreed to and its an option for us if he refuses to budge. It is what it is. And in that deal he can just sit and collect his cheque and not agree to squat while giving the team a bad name. Hardball is a dumb option with little to no benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 6 minutes ago, JM_ said: unless there's a bidding war. Or the guy doesn't want to play in Canada. Lots of thing can derail UFA plans. here's the list of UFA C's as of now: https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/free-agents/2023/points/all/center/ufa Who do you think we're landing thats going to be as good and also cheaper than Miller? I don't think they'll get someone to replace Miller, I think they'll go all in on Petey and Bo as #1-2. I honestly think if Bo gets to play with skilled wingers the Miller does, he can do a lot of what Miller does. I still say Chytil from NYR would be a great pick up and give them three C's with a focus on offense 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, JM_ said: Who do you think we're landing thats going to be as good and also cheaper than Miller? Why is that the criteria? That's not possible. No 3C is going to be "as good as and cheaper than Miller". That's not the point here. The point is to sell high, multiply assets, get younger faster and cheaper, not &^@# our cap allocation/opportunity cost through the young core's prime and improve the roster elsewhere (defense). A replacement 3C just comes in to fill out C depth, take on some of the match up minutes, PK (likely better than Miller) etc. Edited February 2, 2022 by aGENT 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Am.Ironman Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 3 hours ago, JM_ said: declining production, overpaid and too much term. If its a decision between shedding Pearson and keeping Miller, thats a no-brainer to me. All true regarding Pearson but at what cost does 34-35 year old Miller come at? I don't think Miller would want to sign a deal for a term that suits the Canucks. I wouldn't be surprised if he wants to move back to a USA team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 11 minutes ago, aGENT said: Nobody 'has' to go. At least not this year. Otherwise, I don't disagree. I'd happily move on from Hamonic as he's basically been MIA. Even if he is back next year, I'd expect we move him next TDL as he's expiring. And he'll have actual value as a rental next TDL. I'd happily shed Poolman as well. But not at a cost. Middling to almost no return or better fitting player at similar cap? Sure. Disagree. Pearson is better than he gets credit for and then you're also spending assets, bleeding depth, committing cap to declining assets and risking opportunity costs. None of those guys are Player Name-esque turds. They may not return much/anything but they shouldn't cost to move. As they come up, they actually have value as TDL rentals. Pettersson. Horvat, Pettersson, UFA/trade (Paul, Tierney, Sturm, Compher etc) Lammiko. Maybe a young 2 or 3C is part of Boeser trade as well? Precisely why Miller is worth what he's worth in trade. And in that deal he can just sit and collect his cheque and not agree to squat while giving the team a bad name. Hardball is a dumb option with little to no benefit. I hope you're right and Pearson and Hamonic could be seen as rentals that don't cost us, I'll be gleefully surprised if JR can pull that off. I just like our known quantity in Miller, and don't want to give it up for magic beans. If there isn't a top RHD on offer I want to keep him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 10 minutes ago, aGENT said: Why is that the criteria? That's not possible. No 3C is going to be "as good as and cheaper than Miller". That's not the point here. The point is to sell high, multiply assets, get younger faster and cheaper, not &^@# our cap allocation/opportunity cost through the young core's prime and improve the roster elsewhere (defense). A replacement 3C just comes in to fill out C depth, take on some of the match up minutes, PK (likely better than Miller) etc. this pretty much sums up the replacing Miller argument 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now