[PGT] Los Angeles Kings at Vancouver Canucks | Apr. 28, 2022

[Zhukini]

18 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

 

Right, so rip the key player out in it all?...the guy who, aside from Demko, was the reason we were even IN the fight?

 

There is no need for Miller now? What? There's always need for a player like him which is why you value him so high in what he'd bring in return. But that's worth considering....allowing another team to snap him up for "potentials".

 

My good God, did you see the team turnaround a season that was all but done before Christmas? Some will take some losses that "we should have won" as examples of why it doesn't matter but, in doing that, leave out the wins that should've been losses. It does matter.

 

You don't start messing with the chemistry when a team's starting to really fire. Reset and hope to reclaim some of that, but even better as you let go of one of the key players in the success the team did see? "As great as Miller is" is why you keep him.

 

It's playoffs or bust for some and I get that....but we'd be IN the playoffs if Bruce was brought in earlier and this team had someone who believed in them behind the bench instead of someone who'd all but given up on them. 

It's not playoffs or bust. With a #1 C, D and Goalie, making the playoffs should be the minimum year in and year out. Thanks to Benning there are major roster parts that need to be at the very least rejigged. 

 

Fact of the matter is that players move on. Does it have to be JT? No If the offer isn't good enough and his contract demands aren't insane then yes because of all the points you mentioned, by all means keep him here. 

 

But how many of Petey,Hughes,Boeser,Demko,Miller and Horvat do you think will retire Canucks. It won't be all of them.

It wasn't with the Sedins,Kesler,Burrows,Edler,Luongo. 

[mikeyman109]

3 minutes ago, Zhukini said:

It's not playoffs or bust. With a #1 C, D and Goalie, making the playoffs should be the minimum year in and year out. Thanks to Benning there are major roster parts that need to be at the very least rejigged. 

 

Fact of the matter is that players move on. Does it have to be JT? No If the offer isn't good enough and his contract demands aren't insane then yes because of all the points you mentioned, by all means keep him here. 

 

But how many of Petey,Hughes,Boeser,Demko,Miller and Horvat do you think will retire Canucks. It won't be all of them.

It wasn't with the Sedins,Kesler,Burrows,Edler,Luongo. 

I agree they wont all retire as Canucks. But the 100 point players did. and should. Boeser looks like the odd man out here and as much as I love what the kid brings he is struggling to be value at 7.5 Million.

Miller is a Number 1 C. He will get to 100 points tonight, hates losing, makes the players around him better. Im not sure what else anyone wants from him except to be the guy Horvat passes the cup to after we win it. I say you sign the player. Hes earned it. He wants to stay here. He has a great leadership role. and if he regresses in 4 or 5 years then look at your options then. You need a good mix of players to have success. some will be older, some will be younger. trading Miller for prospects or draft picks puts this team back another four to five years.then we will be discussing whether they can sign various other players to deals as they will be too old.when the contract ends.

 

I have watched this team for over 50 years. So many minutes wasted worrying about contracts and things we dont control. I enjoy watching JT Miller play hockey. I enjoy watching him make the Canucks a better team. I hope that continues beyond next year.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Almighty$O$APettersson]

How didn't J.T Miller make the all star game this year?

[Googlie]

9 hours ago, Vinny in Vancouver said:

I'll make your day then! If the Canucks trade for the 1st round pick of whoever wins the Cup this year, you'll get your wish. 

Very true - hadn't thought of that!!

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Old Alf is starting to agree witht the sign JT thinking.  Last time we lost important leaders was after the bubble when both Tanev and Marky left.  It took us pretty much two years to recover from the effects that had on the group.  Losing Miller could do the same.  Best to keep these guys and move out younger ones if we need to keep the cap manageable. 

Exactly. The same people crying that we moved our veteran leaders of this team and keep bringing up Tanev every 5 minutes cause he would have been the saviour to help us make the playoffs are the same ones that want to ship out Miller for picks and prospects. 
 

Signing a 30 year old Markstrom to a 6x6 deal was totally fine and signing a defenceman who was injured on average 20 games per year to a 4 year extension was also totally fine. But signing a 100 point player who is the unofficial leader of this team to a 6 or 7 year extension is totally crazy and cannot happen under any circumstances. 

[MrCanuck94]

1 hour ago, -DLC- said:

 

Right, so rip the key player out in it all?...the guy who, aside from Demko, was the reason we were even IN the fight?

 

There is no need for Miller now? What? There's always need for a player like him which is why you value him so high in what he'd bring in return. But that's worth considering....allowing another team to snap him up for "potentials".

 

My good God, did you see the team turnaround a season that was all but done before Christmas? Some will take some losses that "we should have won" as examples of why it doesn't matter but, in doing that, leave out the wins that should've been losses. It does matter.

 

You don't start messing with the chemistry when a team's starting to really fire. Reset and hope to reclaim some of that, but even better as you let go of one of the key players in the success the team did see? "As great as Miller is" is why you keep him.

 

It's playoffs or bust for some and I get that....but we'd be IN the playoffs if Bruce was brought in earlier and this team had someone who believed in them behind the bench instead of someone who'd all but given up on them. 

It all depends on when management thinks they can build a contender. If they feel the team is 3 years or more away, then yes trading players that would be leaving their prime and gaining the maximum assets back would make sense. It would make us a stronger team down the line.

 

I personally want to keep Miller, but the argument of moving him is completely valid when looking at team cycles and maximizing assets.

[Hairy Kneel]

The main benefit of keeping OEL would be PP1 back up in case Huggy goes down. But could Rathbone be an equally effective back up? Or does he need more time. 

[Canuck Surfer]

8 hours ago, -DLC- said:

 

Right, so rip the key player out in it all?...the guy who, aside from Demko, was the reason we were even IN the fight?

 

There is no need for Miller now? What? There's always need for a player like him which is why you value him so high in what he'd bring in return. But that's worth considering....allowing another team to snap him up for "potentials".

 

My good God, did you see the team turnaround a season that was all but done before Christmas? Some will take some losses that "we should have won" as examples of why it doesn't matter but, in doing that, leave out the wins that should've been losses. It does matter.

 

You don't start messing with the chemistry when a team's starting to really fire. Reset and hope to reclaim some of that, but even better as you let go of one of the key players in the success the team did see? "As great as Miller is" is why you keep him.

 

It's playoffs or bust for some and I get that....but we'd be IN the playoffs if Bruce was brought in earlier and this team had someone who believed in them behind the bench instead of someone who'd all but given up on them. 

Just playing devil's advocate?

 

Roberto Luongo in 2010 just before we became a legitimate contender was due a raise.  His contract handcuffed us completely for 5 plus years after we did not win.  And that team, was also ,debatably, quite a bit ahead of where our 2021/22 team is.  Our team played great the 2knd half, but needs a fair bit to be a contender. There is a good argument that Corey Schneider and $7 Mill cap space would have been just as good immediately, definitely better long term.

 

And you already know the rest of the argument.  We have traded two first, have called up our best prospects to empty the cupboard. Are already hammered against the cap to get where we are. IMO we have overplayed our circumstance.

 

 

 

There will be some adjustments; don't be surprised if JT is part...

 

Do we have the tools to become an actual contender?     

[Hairy Kneel]

1 hour ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Just playing devil's advocate?

 

Roberto Luongo in 2010 just before we became a legitimate contender was due a raise.  His contract handcuffed us completely for 5 plus years after we did not win.  And that team, was also ,debatably, quite a bit ahead of where our 2021/22 team is.  Our team played great the 2knd half, but needs a fair bit to be a contender. There is a good argument that Corey Schneider and $7 Mill cap space would have been just as good immediately, definitely better long term.

 

And you already know the rest of the argument.  We have traded two first, have called up our best prospects to empty the cupboard. Are already hammered against the cap to get where we are. IMO we have overplayed our circumstance.

 

 

 

There will be some adjustments; don't be surprised if JT is part...

 

Do we have the tools to become an actual contender?     

I wouldn't say 2 firsts I consider Miller a great trade for a first. So one first. 

[iinatcc]

15 hours ago, -DLC- said:

 

Right, so rip the key player out in it all?...the guy who, aside from Demko, was the reason we were even IN the fight?

 

There is no need for Miller now? What? There's always need for a player like him which is why you value him so high in what he'd bring in return. But that's worth considering....allowing another team to snap him up for "potentials".

 

My good God, did you see the team turnaround a season that was all but done before Christmas? Some will take some losses that "we should have won" as examples of why it doesn't matter but, in doing that, leave out the wins that should've been losses. It does matter.

 

You don't start messing with the chemistry when a team's starting to really fire. Reset and hope to reclaim some of that, but even better as you let go of one of the key players in the success the team did see? "As great as Miller is" is why you keep him.

 

It's playoffs or bust for some and I get that....but we'd be IN the playoffs if Bruce was brought in earlier and this team had someone who believed in them behind the bench instead of someone who'd all but given up on them. 

Hmmm I originally had a longer post from what I wrote but I guess I should explain my view on this further

 

So I really like Miller, my heart says keep him and he's a heart and soul guy, but my mind says we can't keep it him.

 

The reason for this is that Miller is having a career year (or period since he was also in the same pace is the previous seasons) having said that given his age offering him a long term deal on his expected value ( good comparison from sports net is Zibanejad) once his contract expires next off-season is a big risk and doesn't fit into the timeline when the Canucks can be competitive (or at least a contender) again. And we still even didn't factor in what kind of contract Kadri will be getting next. 

 

Sure this season after Bruce took over looks promising but how many of those wins were masked by Demko's performance. But according to Sportsnet 650 (I can't remember who it was I want to think it's Kevin Woodley but I could be wrong) but the Canucks are still somewhere in the bottom when it comes to High Danger changes against (or some defensive stat). If this doesn't sound familiar it sounds like where the Avs were in their 2013-2014 season and got bounced in the 1st round despite winning a highly competitive central division. Who is to say this won't be the same trajectory Canucks are in right now ?

 

But all signs point to most Hockey analysts and experts is that the way Canucks are playing isn't sustainable (which actually makes missing the playoff hurts since all signs point to the team might be able to replicate what they did with Bruce next season). 

 

Having said that if 3 or 4 years is when Canucks will be a contender, will Miller's extension if he does get one with Vancouver become a problem or will he still contribute to the team where he's not holding the team down? Sure people can keep brining up Joe Pavelski but seeing as everyone is talking about Pavelski and his performance and his age means it's more the exception than the norm.

 

So what is the next best option? Miller had 99 points this season, there has to be a team willing to get him and for Canucks to walk away with a great (or even very good) return. There's a team that's bound to be desperate if they don't make a deep playoff run perhaps Colorado, Tampa, The Leafs, or the Hurricanes. 

 

If the Canucks are in a win now mode then I would be open on keeping Miller, obviously. But even Rutherford said the team is not in a good situation considering the lack of cap flexibility and where they stand compared the rest of league. 

 

Is there a chance on keeping Miller? Sure. If the team can offload some contracts to make him fit and perhaps even trading OEL or Horvat and/or Miller signs a team friendly deal. Then sure. But I can't imagine Miller's agent agreeing on a deal less than $8 Million deal when the Canucks signed LE to 6 Million, Beagle and Roussel to 3, and even recently Dickinson on that contract.   

 

Like I said I would love to keep Miller but circumstances around where the team is at and the market and his recent performance makes doesn't indicate it would be in the best interest of the team long term.

 

 

[Canuck Surfer]

10 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I wouldn't say 2 firsts I consider Miller a great trade for a first. So one first. 

The 2knd 1st was for OEL/Garland