No Core Player NEEDS to be traded...

[Timråfan]

3 hours ago, grandmaster said:

Right now Miller is much better than Petey. I am talking now. Not 3 years ago.  Also, 28 is not old. He is in his prime and can play well in more aspects of the game. He is a difference maker unlike Petey. And like I said, there are plenty of examples of good players who go into the mid 30’s, including power forwards like JT.

Miller is better now because Green liked his game better and let him take the first role.

You know the style Green liked.

Petey has to leave that dire game and get back to the creative role he likes.

When you compare the creativity Petey is no. 1.

So if you want to talk about difference maker Petey is best.

Miller has grown a bit but he’s 28 now and as you say, in his prime… It means he only gets worse.

Petey is at the beginning of his era and it’s only coaches like Green and players like Miller that holds him back. 
Ok, injuries might be worst.

Still, the games I watched when Miller and Petey played together Green or the one handling the PP stationed Petey on the right side while Hughes took the puck in to Miller.

That strategy inflated Miller points heavily at the cost of Peteys points.

I’ve seen that strategy a lot. If you missed it I’d be surprised.

Still Petey is a lot closer to be a ppg player through his career than Miller. 
If Petey had been let in on the game he would have a lot more points besides the ones he has to fight fore.

[ShawnAntoski]

The JR, interview with McCown - further cements the plan, that Allvin will be in charge, of a retool rather than a rebuild and I wonder, how much difference, it will be to JBs'.  Currently there are a few things, going for Allvin: Boudreau (the right coach), Demko and a young core (thanks, JB).  There is enough pieces, in place to still justify the decision, to gamble with this core and it makes sense to do it, during Demkos' 5yr deal.

 

Great context, on Aquaman and there first meeting.  GCG !

https://player.fm/series/the-bob-mccown-podcast/jim-rutherford-on-the-vancouver-canucks

Edited February 7, 2022 by ShawnAntoski

[khay]

13 hours ago, grandmaster said:

1) If JT signs an extension, that would cement his stay here as a franchise player. He is the best power forward we have had since Bert. JT in fact does more than what Bert did; PK, face offs, leadership skills on and off the ice, etc. He is better than Petey. Sorry but not sorry.

 

2) you don’t need to be a “generational” player to be extended into your 30’s and don’t assume his extension will cost 9M per (you make way too many assumptions by the way).

1. Bert was not a franchise player. So saying that Miller does more than Bert doesn't make Miller a franchise player.

 

And leadership skill? The whole team is struggling to score other than him. Leader is one that makes those around him better, remember Kunitz? A guy that played with Crosby? It seemed like whoever played with Crosby could score 30 goals. Remember Alex Burrows? Former ECHL player? He scored 30 goals playing with soon-to-be hall of famers. Markus Granlund popped in about 20 goals playing with the Sedins. And Anson Carter scored 33 goals.

 

I never heard of Miller making other players better -- well, he did in his first season playing with EP and Boeser. But that magic disappeared pretty quickly didn't it? And of course he is better than Petey now. But that's irrelevant to whether we should re-sign or trade Miller because it's who we choose to build around for the future. 

 

2. Obviously, you don't need to be a generational player to be extended into your 30's. There are lots of non-generational players that are signed into 30's, just ask Loui Player Name, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Andrew Ladd, Milan Lucic, so on and on. Building around a non-generational player who is in his 30's is not very prudent though. None of the aforementioned players were considered the main piece of the team and yet, they have become anchor contracts.

 

Making an assumption is necessary because no one knows the future. You have to identify the worst case, average case, and best case and place probability on each case in terms of likelihood of taking place so that you can plan accordingly. As I see it, there are 2 worst case scenarios, 1 average case, and 2 best case scenarios. 

 

Worst case 1: We re-sign Miller to 9+ mil x 8 years and he pulls a Loui Player Name in year 2 of his new deal.

 

Worst case 2: Miller walks to UFA because he wants to be paid. We get nothing back. But this is not too bad as we don't commit cap space long term.

 

Average case: Miller walks to UFA but we make playoffs this season and the next. And Miller delivers some excitement for the fans as he helps us win a round, maybe two rounds  although we don't win the ultimate prize.

 

Best case 1: Miller is traded at TDL, we get a 1st, young NHL forward in a similar situation as where Miller was when he was traded from the Rangers, and a young RD. The young players we get back grow along with our own guys and we contend for the cup for the next 5-7 years.

 

Best case 2: We re-sign Miller to 8 mil x 5 years. And we win the cup with Miller as our best player. 

 

I give less than 1% chance to best case 2. I give more than 10% chance to worst case 1.

 

The chance of at least one of the 3 pieces that we get back in the Miller trade (best case 1) contributes well to the team is pretty high IMO.

 

The chance that Miller walks is pretty high too...

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by khay

[IBatch]

7 hours ago, khay said:

1. Bert was not a franchise player. So saying that Miller does more than Bert doesn't make Miller a franchise player.

 

And leadership skill? The whole team is struggling to score other than him. Leader is one that makes those around him better, remember Kunitz? A guy that played with Crosby? Whoever that guy plays with scores 30 goals. Remember Alex Burrows? Former ECHL player? He scored 30 goals playing with soon-to-be hall of famers.

 

I never heard of Miller making other players better -- well, he did in his first season playing with EP and Boeser. But that magic disappeared pretty quickly didn't it? And of course he is better than Petey now. But that's irrelevant to whether we should re-sign or trade Miller because it's who we choose to build around for the future. 

 

2. Obviously, you don't need to be a generational player to be extended into your 30's. There are lots of non-generational players that are signed into 30's, just ask Loui Player Name, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Andrew Ladd, Milan Lucic, so on and on. Building around a non-generational player who is in his 30's is not very prudent though. None of the aforementioned players were considered the main piece of the team and yet, they have become anchor contracts.

 

Making an assumption is necessary because no one knows the future. You have to identify the worst case, average case, and best case and place probability on each case in terms of likelihood of taking place so that you can plan accordingly. As I see it, there are 2 worst case scenarios, 1 average case, and 2 best case scenarios. 

 

Worst case 1: We re-sign Miller to 9+ mil x 8 years and he pulls a Loui Player Name in year 2 of his new deal.

 

Worst case 2: Miller walks to UFA because he wants to be paid. We get nothing back. But this is not too bad as we don't commit cap space long term.

 

Average case: Miller walks to UFA but we make playoffs this season and the next. And Miller delivers some excitement for the fans as he helps us win a round, maybe two rounds  although we don't win the ultimate prize.

 

Best case 1: Miller is traded at TDL, we get a 1st, young NHL forward in a similar situation as where Miller was when he was traded from the Rangers, and a young RD. The young players we get back grows along with our own guys and we contend for the cup for the next 5-7 years.

 

Best case 2: We re-sign Miller to 8 mil x 5 years. And we win the cup with Miller as our best player. 

 

I give less than 1% chance to best case 2. I give more than 10% chance to worst case 1.

 

The chance of at least one of the 3 pieces that we get back in the Miller trade (best case 1) contributes well to the team is pretty high IMO.

 

The chance that Miller walks is pretty high too...

 

 

Well said.   If the average informed fan can derive these conclusions, i'm expecting the same can be said from the front office.   The worst IMO, case is with trading Miller is we get nothing back no matter how exciting is our futures don't work out from trading Miller one bit ... Thar said we still get the cap back.    The worst case in not trading him is way way worse.   LE 2.0 but this time 8 x 8 or something like it.  Doubt either will happen but well seen it before so they could.

 

He isn't Bertuzzi.   Bertuzzi was better sorry anyone who disagrees with that wasn't watching any games back then.   Also he may qualify as a "power forward" in todays game, but back then lol not at all.   Just an average forward who is pretty good at most things but not great at anything.   So i'm 100% in agreement.   He's not even close to the Sedins, Naslund or Bertuzzi.   Go score 40 goals and then we can re-visit.   Even 30.    Don't know what he's actually worth / two firsts and Schnieder?   Kerfoot and TO's best two prospects?  Maybe somewhere inbetween.   The key here is don't be on the wrong side of history.   To me Miller is a very good utility guy ... and that's worth maybe 6 x 6 on his next deal.   But he's playing himself into something else.   So why should we not trade him now while his stock is high!   He's not going to win us a cup either.     Maybe if we had a Zegras and  Boldy but we don't..., best case he makes that happen for us with whom we get back.

Edited February 7, 2022 by IBatch

[Gawdzukes]

10 hours ago, khay said:

1. Bert was not a franchise player. So saying that Miller does more than Bert doesn't make Miller a franchise player.

 

And leadership skill? The whole team is struggling to score other than him. Leader is one that makes those around him better, remember Kunitz? A guy that played with Crosby? It seemed like whoever played with Crosby could score 30 goals. Remember Alex Burrows? Former ECHL player? He scored 30 goals playing with soon-to-be hall of famers. Markus Granlund popped in about 20 goals playing with the Sedins. And Anson Carter scored 33 goals.

 

I never heard of Miller making other players better -- well, he did in his first season playing with EP and Boeser. But that magic disappeared pretty quickly didn't it? And of course he is better than Petey now. But that's irrelevant to whether we should re-sign or trade Miller because it's who we choose to build around for the future. 

 

2. Obviously, you don't need to be a generational player to be extended into your 30's. There are lots of non-generational players that are signed into 30's, just ask Loui Player Name, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Andrew Ladd, Milan Lucic, so on and on. Building around a non-generational player who is in his 30's is not very prudent though. None of the aforementioned players were considered the main piece of the team and yet, they have become anchor contracts.

 

Making an assumption is necessary because no one knows the future. You have to identify the worst case, average case, and best case and place probability on each case in terms of likelihood of taking place so that you can plan accordingly. As I see it, there are 2 worst case scenarios, 1 average case, and 2 best case scenarios. 

 

Worst case 1: We re-sign Miller to 9+ mil x 8 years and he pulls a Loui Player Name in year 2 of his new deal.

 

Worst case 2: Miller walks to UFA because he wants to be paid. We get nothing back. But this is not too bad as we don't commit cap space long term.

 

Average case: Miller walks to UFA but we make playoffs this season and the next. And Miller delivers some excitement for the fans as he helps us win a round, maybe two rounds  although we don't win the ultimate prize.

 

Best case 1: Miller is traded at TDL, we get a 1st, young NHL forward in a similar situation as where Miller was when he was traded from the Rangers, and a young RD. The young players we get back grow along with our own guys and we contend for the cup for the next 5-7 years.

 

Best case 2: We re-sign Miller to 8 mil x 5 years. And we win the cup with Miller as our best player. 

 

I give less than 1% chance to best case 2. I give more than 10% chance to worst case 1.

 

The chance of at least one of the 3 pieces that we get back in the Miller trade (best case 1) contributes well to the team is pretty high IMO.

 

The chance that Miller walks is pretty high too...

 

 

Nicely laid out thought process Khay. Of course you're right one should look at all possibilities when making a decision like this. I would add to best case #1 is that those young players help us win a Cup.  

 

I would also add that there is a very real possibility Miller is kept for this year and unloaded next year, giving JR and crew a little more time. This route concerns me not only because the value drops but but an off year or injury could leave us with nothing ... and that's Canuck luck.

 

Worst Case #1: 5% chance he turns into Louie, 65% his play drops off big after year 2.

Worst Case #2: EPIC FAIL by management

Average Case: EPIC FAIL by management

Best Case #1: We receive 3 key players that help define our franchise moving forward

Best Case #2: Cup with Miller I agree with 1% chance strapped cap wise with a worse team than now

 

I would usually not agree with giving away your best player but:

 

1. I don't see Miller re-signing

2. Good teams maximize their assets for the future. Other than Bo (which worked not bad) we haven't since 2006. Bertuzzi for Luongo. Key to us making the finals.

3. This team should have been rebuilt after 2012, still needs to happen unfortunately

4.  It's the obvious thing to do with the salary cap maxed out and a brand new management team and coach in place.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Gawdzukes

[mll]

11 hours ago, khay said:

1. Bert was not a franchise player. So saying that Miller does more than Bert doesn't make Miller a franchise player.

 

And leadership skill? The whole team is struggling to score other than him. Leader is one that makes those around him better, remember Kunitz? A guy that played with Crosby? It seemed like whoever played with Crosby could score 30 goals. Remember Alex Burrows? Former ECHL player? He scored 30 goals playing with soon-to-be hall of famers. Markus Granlund popped in about 20 goals playing with the Sedins. And Anson Carter scored 33 goals.

 

I never heard of Miller making other players better -- well, he did in his first season playing with EP and Boeser. But that magic disappeared pretty quickly didn't it? And of course he is better than Petey now. But that's irrelevant to whether we should re-sign or trade Miller because it's who we choose to build around for the future. 

 

2. Obviously, you don't need to be a generational player to be extended into your 30's. There are lots of non-generational players that are signed into 30's, just ask Loui Player Name, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Andrew Ladd, Milan Lucic, so on and on. Building around a non-generational player who is in his 30's is not very prudent though. None of the aforementioned players were considered the main piece of the team and yet, they have become anchor contracts.

 

Making an assumption is necessary because no one knows the future. You have to identify the worst case, average case, and best case and place probability on each case in terms of likelihood of taking place so that you can plan accordingly. As I see it, there are 2 worst case scenarios, 1 average case, and 2 best case scenarios. 

 

Worst case 1: We re-sign Miller to 9+ mil x 8 years and he pulls a Loui Player Name in year 2 of his new deal.

 

Worst case 2: Miller walks to UFA because he wants to be paid. We get nothing back. But this is not too bad as we don't commit cap space long term.

 

Average case: Miller walks to UFA but we make playoffs this season and the next. And Miller delivers some excitement for the fans as he helps us win a round, maybe two rounds  although we don't win the ultimate prize.

 

Best case 1: Miller is traded at TDL, we get a 1st, young NHL forward in a similar situation as where Miller was when he was traded from the Rangers, and a young RD. The young players we get back grow along with our own guys and we contend for the cup for the next 5-7 years.

 

Best case 2: We re-sign Miller to 8 mil x 5 years. And we win the cup with Miller as our best player. 

 

I give less than 1% chance to best case 2. I give more than 10% chance to worst case 1.

 

The chance of at least one of the 3 pieces that we get back in the Miller trade (best case 1) contributes well to the team is pretty high IMO.

 

The chance that Miller walks is pretty high too...

 

 

 

Miller has a role he wouldn't necessarily have on another team so he might also weigh that in his decision.  He is Boudreau's go-to-player and has a big voice in the room.  The contenders trying to trade for him already have those top guys.  They don't necessarily have much cap space either.

 

How he impacts the rest of the roster should probably also be factored in.  Part of becoming a contender is also to provide the young core with the best environment so they can take that next step.  Miller has a sheltering role and takes a lot of pressure off Pettersson especially.

 

After this season Demko will have only 4 years left, Hughes 5, Pettersson 2 + 1 - they are presumably the players they are building around.  As they re-tool they near free agency.  They also need to make sure that they will want to stay on. 

 

Those 1st round picks or other young assets they get in return could be more than a couple of years away - Podkolzin is in his draft + 3 and isn't making much of an impact yet.  How they keep that group motivated is also part of the equation.

 

Players know Miller's importance on the ice and in the room (Sat Shah says players speak really highly of his importance) and might feel that the rug is being pulled from under their feet.  If he wants to move on then a trade is understanble but if his preference is to stay, they should make sure that players can accept why he is being moved.  Without him his role has to be filled by players who might not be ready and the team might take even a further step back.  

If they extend Miller they can try and compete while in parallel build up their prospect pool and give them the necessary time to develop.  By being decently competitive it buys time to set the right structure for developing and bringing in prospects while also making sure that their core players continue to see their future in Vancouver.  A new deal for Miller is a risk but there's also the risk that the picks/prospects don't become impact players either or that their timeline is too far out from the current young core.

 

 

 

[khay]

5 hours ago, mll said:

 

Miller has a role he wouldn't necessarily have on another team so he might also weigh that in his decision.  He is Boudreau's go-to-player and has a big voice in the room.  The contenders trying to trade for him already have those top guys.  They don't necessarily have much cap space either.

 

How he impacts the rest of the roster should probably also be factored in.  Part of becoming a contender is also to provide the young core with the best environment so they can take that next step.  Miller has a sheltering role and takes a lot of pressure off Pettersson especially.

 

After this season Demko will have only 4 years left, Hughes 5, Pettersson 2 + 1 - they are presumably the players they are building around.  As they re-tool they near free agency.  They also need to make sure that they will want to stay on. 

 

Those 1st round picks or other young assets they get in return could be more than a couple of years away - Podkolzin is in his draft + 3 and isn't making much of an impact yet.  How they keep that group motivated is also part of the equation.

 

Players know Miller's importance on the ice and in the room (Sat Shah says players speak really highly of his importance) and might feel that the rug is being pulled from under their feet.  If he wants to move on then a trade is understanble but if his preference is to stay, they should make sure that players can accept why he is being moved.  Without him his role has to be filled by players who might not be ready and the team might take even a further step back.  

If they extend Miller they can try and compete while in parallel build up their prospect pool and give them the necessary time to develop.  By being decently competitive it buys time to set the right structure for developing and bringing in prospects while also making sure that their core players continue to see their future in Vancouver.  A new deal for Miller is a risk but there's also the risk that the picks/prospects don't become impact players either or that their timeline is too far out from the current young core.

 

 

 

Well said. 

 

But I would raise a question as to how much of a shelter Miller provides and at what cost. If he signs say, a 3 or 4 year deal then we don't need to trade him. But keeping him around longer than that wouldn't be smart.

 

Also, Pettersson was doing fine before Miller arrived. His first two seasons made us think about Pavel Bure's first few seasons. And now the whole team is struggling to score, well except Miller.

 

When Miller was a complimentary piece, he helped make others play better. Lotto line was going great, he provided puck protection/possession, which bought time for EP and Boeser to skate into good positions. Now, there's zero chemistry. Whichever line Miller is on, Miller is too puck dominant. Him becoming the go-to guy has somehow messed up the team chemistry and somewhat distorted the trajectory that the team was on. Instead of a young up and coming team, we have become a borderline playoff team led by Miller.

 

Miller is a great player and I'm not arguing that point. But maybe what we need is to clear the way so that the young guys can step in and fill his shoes. As it stands and according to Rutherford, we are going in a roughly 2-year retool. He specifically mentioned 2 years in his interview although he also said it's hard to put an exact timeline on these things.

 

I would hand the reigns back to Petey, Bo, and Boes for the next two seasons and see where they take us. If they take us nowhere, well hopefully we draft core players during this retool phase to help us become a contender.

 

I think Tampa is the right model to follow and we have a lot of good pieces to emulate their path.

 

2014 TDL: Trades Martin St. Louis. Effectively handing over the team to Stamkos, Kucherov, and other young players. They began their retool.

2014: Drafts Point, who becomes their #1C. Without Point, they may not have won two cups as Stamkos as #1C may not have been enough to get over the top teams in the East. 

2015: Draft Cirelli.

 

Point and Cirelli are effectively #1, #2 centers and have safely pushed Stamkos to becoming a winger.

 

If Petey is not to be the #1 center, then I hope we draft one in the 2-year retool. He would still make it fine as a scoring LW. And we will still have Bo Horvat as our #2C.

 

I'd much rather take this route than to re-sign Miller to a longish contract that has high chance of biting us in the a$$.

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by khay

[Kurgom]

Don't fall into the same trap Benning did and rebuild, properly. Hughes, Bo, Pettersson and Demko can be here for 10+ years each, keep them and get what you can for Miller. In 5+ years you will see the dividends from this in serious cup runs.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Kurgom

[khay]

1 hour ago, Kurgom said:

Don't fall into the same trap Benning did and rebuild, properly. Hughes, Bo, Pettersson and Demko can be here for 10+ years each, keep them and get what you can for Miller. In 5+ years you will see the dividends from this in serious cup runs.

Agree. Somehow this is so hard to see for others, include Craig Button who keeps insisting on evaluating what Elias Pettersson is and try to get 2 top4D for EP and Boeser.

 

And as it stands, we need one top4D. Like it or not, OEL and Myers are top 4Ds  for now and for the near future. 

 

Getting a young top4 RD to play with Hughes by trading Miller makes the most sense in my opinion.

 

Hughes-top4RD

OEL-Myers

3LD-Poolman

 

 

 

[aGENT]

20 minutes ago, khay said:

Agree. Somehow this is so hard to see for others, include Craig Button who keeps insisting on evaluating what Elias Pettersson is and try to get 2 top4D for EP and Boeser.

 

And as it stands, we need one top4D. Like it or not, OEL and Myers are top 4Ds  for now and for the near future. 

 

Getting a young top4 RD to play with Hughes by trading Miller makes the most sense in my opinion.

 

Hughes-top4RD

OEL-Myers

3LD-Poolman

 

 

 

Yes.

 

I mean Myers is expiring in a couple more seasons, so we need to think about it at some point here...but maybe that 2nd pair RD is an eventual Boeser trade, or a UFA in a couple years, or our first rounder this year or something.

 

But we need to start building that out now with the Miller trade IMO. Nobody wants Poolman, Woo, Juulsen as our RD in a couple seasons.

[IBatch]

17 hours ago, mll said:

 

Miller has a role he wouldn't necessarily have on another team so he might also weigh that in his decision.  He is Boudreau's go-to-player and has a big voice in the room.  The contenders trying to trade for him already have those top guys.  They don't necessarily have much cap space either.

 

How he impacts the rest of the roster should probably also be factored in.  Part of becoming a contender is also to provide the young core with the best environment so they can take that next step.  Miller has a sheltering role and takes a lot of pressure off Pettersson especially.

 

After this season Demko will have only 4 years left, Hughes 5, Pettersson 2 + 1 - they are presumably the players they are building around.  As they re-tool they near free agency.  They also need to make sure that they will want to stay on. 

 

Those 1st round picks or other young assets they get in return could be more than a couple of years away - Podkolzin is in his draft + 3 and isn't making much of an impact yet.  How they keep that group motivated is also part of the equation.

 

Players know Miller's importance on the ice and in the room (Sat Shah says players speak really highly of his importance) and might feel that the rug is being pulled from under their feet.  If he wants to move on then a trade is understanble but if his preference is to stay, they should make sure that players can accept why he is being moved.  Without him his role has to be filled by players who might not be ready and the team might take even a further step back.  

If they extend Miller they can try and compete while in parallel build up their prospect pool and give them the necessary time to develop.  By being decently competitive it buys time to set the right structure for developing and bringing in prospects while also making sure that their core players continue to see their future in Vancouver.  A new deal for Miller is a risk but there's also the risk that the picks/prospects don't become impact players either or that their timeline is too far out from the current young core.

 

 

 

These are all very fair statements mll. 

 

Given the goal is to win a Stanley Cup, how does that metric affect these comments?    Does keeping Miller help us win a Stanley cup this year or next?   Or does re-signing him help us win a cup...
 

Have to take the emotion out of it, that's not easy as a fan (personally i'm not very fond of the cap era but do understand we needed it and still do) .... but if you take that out of the equation.    Miller at 7-9 x 8-6 .... pretty sure those are the ranges he's playing himself into.   WITH Miller right now at least, we are not a contender.   That's the crux.    Quite simply he's the best player on the team right now (well QHs and Demko really have a say in that too).... if EP was like his normal self we'd all be on the trade Miller train ... he's supposed to be the heir to the throne but he's for sure not good enough the last two seasons.   

 

There are risks both ways.   Keeping Miller or trading him.   What would probably work best for the team right now as far as getting better is keeping Miller and making some Quin like trades that help later.   A second for Lumme.   Sure would be nice.   Or ... a Miller for Ronning, Courtnall and Momesso.     Miller for sure is a paradox.   

[mll]

16 hours ago, khay said:

Well said. 

 

But I would raise a question as to how much of a shelter Miller provides and at what cost. If he signs say, a 3 or 4 year deal then we don't need to trade him. But keeping him around longer than that wouldn't be smart.

 

Also, Pettersson was doing fine before Miller arrived. His first two seasons made us think about Pavel Bure's first few seasons. And now the whole team is struggling to score, well except Miller.

 

When Miller was a complimentary piece, he helped make others play better. Lotto line was going great, he provided puck protection/possession, which bought time for EP and Boeser to skate into good positions. Now, there's zero chemistry. Whichever line Miller is on, Miller is too puck dominant. Him becoming the go-to guy has somehow messed up the team chemistry and somewhat distorted the trajectory that the team was on. Instead of a young up and coming team, we have become a borderline playoff team led by Miller.

 

Miller is a great player and I'm not arguing that point. But maybe what we need is to clear the way so that the young guys can step in and fill his shoes. As it stands and according to Rutherford, we are going in a roughly 2-year retool. He specifically mentioned 2 years in his interview although he also said it's hard to put an exact timeline on these things.

 

I would hand the reigns back to Petey, Bo, and Boes for the next two seasons and see where they take us. If they take us nowhere, well hopefully we draft core players during this retool phase to help us become a contender.

 

I think Tampa is the right model to follow and we have a lot of good pieces to emulate their path.

 

2014 TDL: Trades Martin St. Louis. Effectively handing over the team to Stamkos, Kucherov, and other young players. They began their retool.

2014: Drafts Point, who becomes their #1C. Without Point, they may not have won two cups as Stamkos as #1C may not have been enough to get over the top teams in the East. 

2015: Draft Cirelli.

 

Point and Cirelli are effectively #1, #2 centers and have safely pushed Stamkos to becoming a winger.

 

If Petey is not to be the #1 center, then I hope we draft one in the 2-year retool. He would still make it fine as a scoring LW. And we will still have Bo Horvat as our #2C.

 

I'd much rather take this route than to re-sign Miller to a longish contract that has high chance of biting us in the a$$.

 

 

In Tampa, most players start out in the AHL.  Kucherov, Cernak, Cirelli all spent time down there before forcing their way to the NHL roster - for some only a few games, others half a season or longer.  BriseBois says that every prospect is treated the same regardless of how he was added.  He also says that their philosophy is (in french) 'if you want to eat you have to chase'.    

 

Development is a significant aspect of their success.  When players force their way up they aren't asked to carry the team.  They have players ahead of them and as they gain their footing in the league their role expand.

 

Vancouver doesn't have that kind of structure and instead have had players by-pass the AHL.  In some cases it was justified but for Podkolzin and even Höglander you wonder if they wouldn't be better served to spend some time there.

 

In his opening interview Allvin talked of the importance of the AHL for development.  Guerin was mentored by Rutherford and has made some strong statements about the AHL being a requirement where he wants prospects to play big minutes in all situations.  He says they want them to become difference makers and not just guys who play in the NHL.  They have to force their hand and they'll make room.  I wonder if Vancouver won't have the same approach.

 

Podkolzin despite never playing in North America was handed a spot - also because he wasn't competing with anyone else.  For the team to strengthen and grow it should be a bit of a challenge to make the roster.  Stepping into a lineup that is competitive forces the player to also step up.  Remove Miller and it makes it easier for everyone to make the team and they might be less competitive.

 

The team has to build their prospect pool and a Miller trade would jumpstart that, but they also need to improve their structure and keep their top guys believing and he would help there too.  There's value to a trade but I am not as convinced that their minds are already made up and it could be more dependent on his asking price and whether he even wants to stay.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, IBatch said:

These are all very fair statements mll. 

 

Given the goal is to win a Stanley Cup, how does that metric affect these comments?    Does keeping Miller help us win a Stanley cup this year or next?   Or does re-signing him help us win a cup...
 

Have to take the emotion out of it, that's not easy as a fan (personally i'm not very fond of the cap era but do understand we needed it and still do) .... but if you take that out of the equation.    Miller at 7-9 x 8-6 .... pretty sure those are the ranges he's playing himself into.   WITH Miller right now at least, we are not a contender.   That's the crux.    Quite simply he's the best player on the team right now (well QHs and Demko really have a say in that too).... if EP was like his normal self we'd all be on the trade Miller train ... he's supposed to be the heir to the throne but he's for sure not good enough the last two seasons.   

 

There are risks both ways.   Keeping Miller or trading him.   What would probably work best for the team right now as far as getting better is keeping Miller and making some Quin like trades that help later.   A second for Lumme.   Sure would be nice.   Or ... a Miller for Ronning, Courtnall and Momesso.     Miller for sure is a paradox.   

 

They might not win a Cup with Miller but he can help build the team and culture that will. 

 

Towards the end of his time in Tampa, Yzerman talked about how long it takes to build a contender.  He noted that he got lucky that they had Stamkos and Hedman when he took over but 8 years later they still hadn't won a Cup.  

 

MacLellan in Washington and Armstrong in St Louis both cited having a core weathered by playoff experience as one of the 5 key reasons they believe their teams finally won - going through the heartbreak of defeat and experiencing how hard it is to win in the post-season.  Vancouver has 1x playoff experience and in a very unusual setting.  They have to build up their prospect pool but the team has to also be able to continue to improve and start gaining that playoff experience.  

 

[IBatch]

36 minutes ago, mll said:

 

In Tampa, most players start out in the AHL.  Kucherov, Cernak, Cirelli all spent time down there before forcing their way to the NHL roster - for some only a few games, others half a season or longer.  BriseBois says that every prospect is treated the same regardless of how he was added.  He also says that their philosophy is (in french) 'if you want to eat you have to chase'.    

 

Development is a significant aspect of their success.  When players force their way up they aren't asked to carry the team.  They have players ahead of them and as they gain their footing in the league their role expand.

 

Vancouver doesn't have that kind of structure and instead have had players by-pass the AHL.  In some cases it was justified but for Podkolzin and even Höglander you wonder if they wouldn't be better served to spend some time there.

 

In his opening interview Allvin talked of the importance of the AHL for development.  Guerin was mentored by Rutherford and has made some strong statements about the AHL being a requirement where he wants prospects to play big minutes in all situations.  He says they want them to become difference makers and not just guys who play in the NHL.  They have to force their hand and they'll make room.  I wonder if Vancouver won't have the same approach.

 

Podkolzin despite never playing in North America was handed a spot - also because he wasn't competing with anyone else.  For the team to strengthen and grow it should be a bit of a challenge to make the roster.  Stepping into a lineup that is competitive forces the player to also step up.  Remove Miller and it makes it easier for everyone to make the team and they might be less competitive.

 

The team has to build their prospect pool and a Miller trade would jumpstart that, but they also need to improve their structure and keep their top guys believing and he would help there too.  There's value to a trade but I am not as convinced that their minds are already made up and it could be more dependent on his asking price and whether he even wants to stay.

 

 

 

 

They might not win a Cup with Miller but he can help build the team and culture that will. 

 

Towards the end of his time in Tampa, Yzerman talked about how long it takes to build a contender.  He noted that he got lucky that they had Stamkos and Hedman when he took over but 8 years later they still hadn't won a Cup.  

 

MacLellan in Washington and Armstrong in St Louis both cited having a core weathered by playoff experience as one of the 5 key reasons they believe their teams finally won - going through the heartbreak of defeat and experiencing how hard it is to win in the post-season.  Vancouver has 1x playoff experience and in a very unusual setting.  They have to build up their prospect pool but the team has to also be able to continue to improve and start gaining that playoff experience.  

 

That's for sure.   Even EDM with their plethora of riches in the early 80's had to learn how to win, and the NYI for sure did them a service (as did MTL several years before - they were also still a top team) ....  i can for sure buy into that.   If Miller became the only cap issue we had say 6-7 years from now but meant and extra couple playoffs yes that's very good value.    Said it all along, my preference is we actually make the show this year and can add to the bubble experience for these guys. 

[MikeyD]

No core player needs to be traded. This is only true if you don't want to win any hockey games lol. 

 

Imagine having less depth with this group than we do now. 

[khay]

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

In Tampa, most players start out in the AHL.  Kucherov, Cernak, Cirelli all spent time down there before forcing their way to the NHL roster - for some only a few games, others half a season or longer.  BriseBois says that every prospect is treated the same regardless of how he was added.  He also says that their philosophy is (in french) 'if you want to eat you have to chase'.    

 

Development is a significant aspect of their success.  When players force their way up they aren't asked to carry the team.  They have players ahead of them and as they gain their footing in the league their role expand.

 

Vancouver doesn't have that kind of structure and instead have had players by-pass the AHL.  In some cases it was justified but for Podkolzin and even Höglander you wonder if they wouldn't be better served to spend some time there.

 

In his opening interview Allvin talked of the importance of the AHL for development.  Guerin was mentored by Rutherford and has made some strong statements about the AHL being a requirement where he wants prospects to play big minutes in all situations.  He says they want them to become difference makers and not just guys who play in the NHL.  They have to force their hand and they'll make room.  I wonder if Vancouver won't have the same approach.

 

Podkolzin despite never playing in North America was handed a spot - also because he wasn't competing with anyone else.  For the team to strengthen and grow it should be a bit of a challenge to make the roster.  Stepping into a lineup that is competitive forces the player to also step up.  Remove Miller and it makes it easier for everyone to make the team and they might be less competitive.

 

The team has to build their prospect pool and a Miller trade would jumpstart that, but they also need to improve their structure and keep their top guys believing and he would help there too.  There's value to a trade but I am not as convinced that their minds are already made up and it could be more dependent on his asking price and whether he even wants to stay.

 

 

 

 

They might not win a Cup with Miller but he can help build the team and culture that will. 

 

Towards the end of his time in Tampa, Yzerman talked about how long it takes to build a contender.  He noted that he got lucky that they had Stamkos and Hedman when he took over but 8 years later they still hadn't won a Cup.  

 

MacLellan in Washington and Armstrong in St Louis both cited having a core weathered by playoff experience as one of the 5 key reasons they believe their teams finally won - going through the heartbreak of defeat and experiencing how hard it is to win in the post-season.  Vancouver has 1x playoff experience and in a very unusual setting.  They have to build up their prospect pool but the team has to also be able to continue to improve and start gaining that playoff experience.  

 

Again, good post.

 

Bypassing the AHL should only be afforded to superstars, like Hughes and Petey. Demko and Marky had to prove themselves there and seeing as how good they are/have been, the AHL development is absolutely a must for prolonged success of the team.

 

I would agree that Podz might have been better served in the AHL and maybe Hogz as well. One thing to note though is that these guys played professional hockey at the highest level in their respective countries, which is not a whole lot below AHL. Well, in the case of KHL, it probably is a better league than the AHL. SHL is probably only a notch below. 

 

I don't think trading one player, Miller, will make it completely bloodless entry onto the Canucks roster for the young ones. This is not 2016-2018 Canucks where a player like Chaput and Megna were tried out on the first line.

 

A rookie will have a hard time breaking onto our roster even without Miller. You have to be better than Petey, Horvat, Garland, Boeser, Pearson, Dickinson, Motte, Lammikko, Highmore, Podz, Hog. Unless the said rookie is a superstar or have mastered the defensive side of the pro game in the junior -- almost impossible I'd say as I can only think of a few, like Ryan O'Reilley but not many else... oh and our beloved 18 year old Sam Bennett :) In other words, we have the forward depth.

 

I do agree that we may need to be patient. Tampa took 8 years after Yzerman took over or 6, 7 years after St. Louis trade.

 

Now, whether Miller is with us for parts of those years or not? I don't know. Only Miller knows. 

 

The thing is, the direction to take with this retool could be made clear if Miller wants to re-sign a reasonable deal. He hasn't indicated his desire to stay and win here. In fact, I see a player wanting to beef up his stat lines on his way to the UFA. I don't see a leader.

 

I don't think I will ever let go of his dumb hero hockey in the OT against Calgary. He clearly thinks he's McDavid?

 

[IBatch]

33 minutes ago, khay said:

Again, good post.

 

Bypassing the AHL should only be afforded to superstars, like Hughes and Petey. Demko and Marky had to prove themselves there and seeing as how good they are/have been, the AHL development is absolutely a must for prolonged success of the team.

 

I would agree that Podz might have been better served in the AHL and maybe Hogz as well. One thing to note though is that these guys played professional hockey at the highest level in their respective countries, which is not a whole lot below AHL. Well, in the case of KHL, it probably is a better league than the AHL. SHL is probably only a notch below. 

 

I don't think trading one player, Miller, will make it completely bloodless entry onto the Canucks roster for the young ones. This is not 2016-2018 Canucks where a player like Chaput and Megna were tried out on the first line.

 

A rookie will have a hard time breaking onto our roster even without Miller. You have to be better than Petey, Horvat, Garland, Boeser, Pearson, Dickinson, Motte, Lammikko, Highmore, Podz, Hog. Unless the said rookie is a superstar or have mastered the defensive side of the pro game in the junior -- almost impossible I'd say as I can only think of a few, like Ryan O'Reilley but not many else... oh and our beloved 18 year old Sam Bennett :) In other words, we have the forward depth.

 

I do agree that we may need to be patient. Tampa took 8 years after Yzerman took over or 6, 7 years after St. Louis trade.

 

Now, whether Miller is with us for parts of those years or not? I don't know. Only Miller knows. 

 

The thing is, the direction to take with this retool could be made clear if Miller wants to re-sign a reasonable deal. He hasn't indicated his desire to stay and win here. In fact, I see a player wanting to beef up his stat lines on his way to the UFA. I don't see a leader.

 

I don't think I will ever let go of his dumb hero hockey in the OT against Calgary. He clearly thinks he's McDavid?

 

Don't forget that TB also actually bottomed out.   Stamkos was a first overall pick, and Hedman a second (by memory too lazy to look it up but pretty certain he went second).... our club never did - although we did come close a two years.    

 

Also the AHL is nothing like it was a decade ago.    Both the SHL and the KHL have surpassed it.    Developing guys in any of those leagues is fair.    This talk is exactly what JB was trying to do - create an environment where no players were gifted a spot - by signing overpaid vets they'd have to push out.   Having our AHL farm team close is going to help things as far as logistics go, but it's not the only developmental league anymore and hasn't been for quite some time.   AHL at one point was almost as good as the NHL (original six days) ask Johnny Bower.    College is also a legit route as well.  

[RU SERIOUS]

On 2/4/2022 at 6:19 AM, IBatch said:

Lol.  The Green excuse doesn't work when players like Miller, Pearson,  EP, BB and even QHs this year WITH Green (his production hasn't gone up under Bruce has it?!), had their best seasons - under Green.   Green is gone but Podz and Hogs are struggling - anyone notice that?   But it's all Greens fault.   At some point - you have to look at this from a lens that is well just your eyeballs.   What i saw happen to EP - was getting mugged by Matheson, and later the same year live - couldn't wait to see this phenom - so eyes were glued on him every single shift - get mugged again by that CAR then MTL piece of crap with too many vowels.   There is a reason he slipped to us, and that's because EP has to endure the rigours of NHL players - not SHL.   When i see the bambi memes during the GDT i cringe a little because that could be what we have, and until he hits the gym and makes sure his body can survive, what we see now is what we've got.  He's timid and who wouldn't be after those injuries.  That is not on Green, that's on JB for not putting one tough Moffo on the ice every time he's on the ice too.    I'd bet every dollar in my bank account, that if he had a Semenko or Probert on his wing that EP would be right back to the player he was the first 30 games.   Not going to happen - and i'm not sure he will dedicate himself to the gym either.  

I certainly agree that we need to get somemore SIZE on this team.   That has been a constant issue under the "8 year Uncle Jim Reign of Terror" and that was identified as problem #2 after problem #1 was identified (speed lacking) by Jim R and was identified early on when he became President.   

 

It would be a shame to lose EP40 but if he somehow manages to escape the hatchet this year and remain on the team, he'll have a very, very short leash next year and will be traded quickly because his rate of decline is accelerating with every day passing.   I'm still praying he gets back in gear under BooDro, but after seeing how many players Green pernanently destroyed while he was here, I'm worried the damage might be irreparable.  Fingers crossed!

Edited February 8, 2022 by RU SERIOUS
typo

[DrJockitch]

18 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Don't forget that TB also actually bottomed out.   Stamkos was a first overall pick, and Hedman a second (by memory too lazy to look it up but pretty certain he went second).... our club never did - although we did come close a two years.    

 

Also the AHL is nothing like it was a decade ago.    Both the SHL and the KHL have surpassed it.    Developing guys in any of those leagues is fair.    This talk is exactly what JB was trying to do - create an environment where no players were gifted a spot - by signing overpaid vets they'd have to push out.   Having our AHL farm team close is going to help things as far as logistics go, but it's not the only developmental league anymore and hasn't been for quite some time.   AHL at one point was almost as good as the NHL (original six days) ask Johnny Bower.    College is also a legit route as well.  

Oh we bottomed out.  In predictable fashion the league changed the draft lottery to make it harder for teams to tank as we are on the way down, then as we were recovering and climbing up the standings (a very small amount) they changed the rules again to decrease the chance that teams drop in their draft positions as much we did every year.

That is Canuck luck for you.  Lose as a team, lose in the draft lottery.

[RU SERIOUS]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:31 AM, Gawdzukes said:

Nicely laid out thought process Khay. Of course you're right one should look at all possibilities when making a decision like this. I would add to best case #1 is that those young players help us win a Cup.  

 

I would also add that there is a very real possibility Miller is kept for this year and unloaded next year, giving JR and crew a little more time. This route concerns me not only because the value drops but but an off year or injury could leave us with nothing ... and that's Canuck luck.

 

Worst Case #1: 5% chance he turns into Louie, 65% his play drops off big after year 2.

Worst Case #2: EPIC FAIL by management

Average Case: EPIC FAIL by management

Best Case #1: We receive 3 key players that help define our franchise moving forward

Best Case #2: Cup with Miller I agree with 1% chance strapped cap wise with a worse team than now

 

I would usually not agree with giving away your best player but:

 

1. I don't see Miller re-signing

2. Good teams maximize their assets for the future. Other than Bo (which worked not bad) we haven't since 2006. Bertuzzi for Luongo. Key to us making the finals.

3. This team should have been rebuilt after 2012, still needs to happen unfortunately

4.  It's the obvious thing to do with the salary cap maxed out and a brand new management team and coach in place.

 

Unfortunately, you are very likely correct in your assumption - that this team will need to be rebuilt.  You can call it whatever you want but the FACT of THE MATTER is that the current assemnbly of players has been a total failure and cannot get the job done.  Uncle Jim assembled the WRONG grouping of players and we can all see that many of them are incompatible with each other and why lines get juggled so much, as the coaches try in vain to get some kind of cohesiveness & synergy going on at least one line.   

 

If we, as long time fans, have noticed and now Jim R and BB have, it is pretty obvious that we do not have the right combination of players on this team to lead us to long term success.  Rather, what we have is a "Hodge-Podge" of Ardvark square players trying to be fit into round holes and it isn't working and hasn't worked for almost the last decade.

 

So rest assured, this team will go thru major surgery, starting I suspect with a few of our so called "core" playres.     T

 

Time to pay the piper and fix this mess - ONCE AND FOR ALL !

[Harold Drunken]

On 2/6/2022 at 1:41 PM, HKSR said:

I don't know how to interpret that Brad Pitt comment lol... but as for the rest, a lot hinges on IF Miller's return pans out.  If we don't get impact players back for Miller, this team will go nowhere.