[Rumour] Canucks trying to find a market for Oliver Ekman-Larsson

[Alflives]

12 minutes ago, AV. said:

 

Oh please, you guys are being absolute weapons with his thought-process.

At 29 years old, Miller isn't getting better.  His 99 pt season is a clear anomaly thus far.  Only fools would think that the best is yet to come or that the best could be maintained.  It's like neither of you pay attention to what's been going on with this team, or even venture outside of what's going on in the league.

Ask San Jose how Burns, Karlsson, and Couture with their contracts are working out.  
Check in with the Islanders to see how things are with Lee, Nelson, etc all extended at high cap-hits.

The cost to extend Miller will be crippling and his value to trade him WILL NEVER BE HIGHER than it is now.

For once, stop being mindless homer fans and think critically, I beg.

If we re-sign Miller it’s a HUGE mistake.  We could manage a Miller contract if we had a lot of prospects (like LA, Anaheim, Detroit, Buffalo, and all properly rebuilding teams) to fill in around him on cheap contracts.  But we don’t have any because Benning traded away our highest picks to bring in Miller/OEL/Garland.  

The timing of our club’s winning cycle is way off.  We need to move out older guys (who have value) on big contracts for picks/prospects and properly rebuild.  

Watching these playoffs, and seeing just how good the top teams are, and it’s obvious why JR said we are at least two years away.  

[JM_]

52 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If we re-sign Miller it’s a HUGE mistake.  We could manage a Miller contract if we had a lot of prospects (like LA, Anaheim, Detroit, Buffalo, and all properly rebuilding teams) to fill in around him on cheap contracts.  But we don’t have any because Benning traded away our highest picks to bring in Miller/OEL/Garland.  

The timing of our club’s winning cycle is way off.  We need to move out older guys (who have value) on big contracts for picks/prospects and properly rebuild.  

Watching these playoffs, and seeing just how good the top teams are, and it’s obvious why JR said we are at least two years away.  

there is more than one option here tho. After next season, a whole bunch of JB's mistakes are gone, with nearly 37 mil to play with before re-signing Bo and Miller. We don't need to panic sell on anyone this year. We can go into next season with Bo and Miller on the last year of their deals, and see what this team really is. If its back to being uncompetitive we can move these two for a ton at the TDL and have a ton of cap space. 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by JM_

[AV.]

47 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If we re-sign Miller it’s a HUGE mistake.  We could manage a Miller contract if we had a lot of prospects (like LA, Anaheim, Detroit, Buffalo, and all properly rebuilding teams) to fill in around him on cheap contracts.  But we don’t have any because Benning traded away our highest picks to bring in Miller/OEL/Garland.  

The timing of our club’s winning cycle is way off.  We need to move out older guys (who have value) on big contracts for picks/prospects and properly rebuild.  

Watching these playoffs, and seeing just how good the top teams are, and it’s obvious why JR said we are at least two years away.  

It's the truth.

Maybe a Miller extension would have been a feasible possibility if we didn't make the OEL/Garland deal, as we would have had 12M coming off the books this summer, but that's obviously not the case anymore.

If we are serious team with actual cup ambitions, we need to be opening up as much cap as possible in the next few years so that we can comfortably extend Pettersson, incorporate ELCs and be able to extend them, and, importantly, have cap space to weaponize and benefit from (see COL and Devon Toews, LAK and Viktor Arvidsson, countless other historical examples).

I can't stress enough that no serious team is turning up to the ice with multiple 30+ players signed for high cap-hits until 35/36 like some of these fans would want us to do.  Ridiculous.

[cuporbust]

Jim and Co. were absolutely horrid at trades and free agent signings . Unreal. 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

How much have we won with Miller?  

The timing of the Miller Trade, like the OEL/Garland Trade, was off.  Again, it was Benning trying to speed up the process of rebuilding.  We gave up back to back 1st rounders and a second and third!  And did that during (what should have been) a rebuilding phase!  

The Miller Trade is a lot of why we are a playoff bubble team, that’s capped out, and in the current mess we’re in.  

Timing, shmiming.

 

Always add value when available. Period.

 

All are worth more today than we paid to get them. Acquiring them just needs to be followed up with additional smart management (not locking up JT for long term and massive cap/trading him for more than we paid).

Edited May 11, 2022 by aGENT

[Warhippy]

There IS the scorched earth option

 

Jettison Miller, Boeser, OEL, Poolman and Myers and then just hold on to the cap space and tank our way in to Bedard

 

You know.  Just to make everyone happy

[AV.]

29 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Timing, shmiming.

 

Always add value when available. Period.

 

All are worth more today than we paid to get them. Acquiring them just needs to be followed up with additional smart management (not locking up JT for long term and massive cap/trading him for more than we paid).

Only Miller has a higher value now, and really, that's because he had this anomaly season.

A 1st (top 10) was paid for Garland, yet a few reports say that the Canucks weren't even a top 30 pick for Garland at the TDL.  OEL has no value - period.

[BPA]

45 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

There IS the scorched earth option

 

Jettison Miller, Boeser, OEL, Poolman and Myers and then just hold on to the cap space and tank our way in to Bedard

 

You know.  Just to make everyone happy

May not be popular amongst the fan base 
 

I wished they did that during the early stages of the JB era.  I’d be OK with it if I knew for certain we were getting Bedard. 
 

Nowadays, kids are jumping into the NHL sooner than later.  So Canucks can be right back into the mix if they can hit on their draft picks.

[canuck73_3]

3 hours ago, AV. said:

That's why Killorn is still there, right?

They wanted to move him sooooo badly, that they moved Miller/T.Johnson/Gourde/Coburn/Callahan all before him

Because Benning wanted Miller they didn’t have to move Killorn anymore 

[AV.]

11 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Because Benning wanted Miller they didn’t have to move Killorn anymore 

And how does that explain moving Johnson, Coburn, etc before Killorn?

Truth is, you picked a name out of the hat as "the alternative" when, in reality, Tampa Bay was only ever moving Miller and his 4 year deal to get under.

Hope that helps.

[mll]

14 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Because Benning wanted Miller they didn’t have to move Killorn anymore 

They didn't want to move Killorn.  Miller was the one on the block - he was playing on their 3rd line and didn't have the role he now has in Vancouver.   He also didn't have a trade clause while Johnson had an NTC.

[canuck73_3]

3 hours ago, AV. said:

And how does that explain moving Johnson, Coburn, etc before Killorn?

Truth is, you picked a name out of the hat as "the alternative" when, in reality, Tampa Bay was only ever moving Miller and his 4 year deal to get under.

Hope that helps.

Repeating a false narrative doesn’t make it true. 
 

Johnson and Killorn were the names being tossed around the most at that time Killorn had a season where he dipped from 47 points to 40. And Johnson had really regressed as well. Miller was a win for Benning no matter how you slice it and to say otherwise shows your lack of objectivity. 
 

Hope this helps. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Repeating a false narrative doesn’t make it true. 
 

Johnson and Killorn were the names being tossed around the most at that time Killorn had a season where he dipped from 47 points to 40. And Johnson had really regressed as well. Miller was a win for Benning no matter how you slice it and to say otherwise shows your lack of objectivity. 
 

Hope this helps. 

The Miller trade, in a vacuum, was a win.  However, the Canucks still aren't a playoff team with Miller.  So really, when taking the timing of giving up our first and third for Miller, it was a bad trade.

Miller was worth 20 + 78

But the timing was bad

So the value, to us as a rebuilding team, we more keeping those picks.

[AV.]

1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

Repeating a false narrative doesn’t make it true. 
 

Johnson and Killorn were the names being tossed around the most at that time Killorn had a season where he dipped from 47 points to 40. And Johnson had really regressed as well. Miller was a win for Benning no matter how you slice it and to say otherwise shows your lack of objectivity. 
 

Hope this helps. 

I agree.  This idea that Killorn's name was out there is simply one contrived in your head lmfao.

 

Doesn't matter if Miller scored 200 pts or 20 pts.  Canucks paid a premium for a player that the other team NEEDED to move.  And last I checked, we haven't done anything with him on the team.  Bubble playoff run?  Bar quite low if that's a "win"

[CR7]

5 hours ago, AV. said:

It's the truth.

Maybe a Miller extension would have been a feasible possibility if we didn't make the OEL/Garland deal, as we would have had 12M coming off the books this summer, but that's obviously not the case anymore.

If we are serious team with actual cup ambitions, we need to be opening up as much cap as possible in the next few years so that we can comfortably extend Pettersson, incorporate ELCs and be able to extend them, and, importantly, have cap space to weaponize and benefit from (see COL and Devon Toews, LAK and Viktor Arvidsson, countless other historical examples).

I can't stress enough that no serious team is turning up to the ice with multiple 30+ players signed for high cap-hits until 35/36 like some of these fans would want us to do.  Ridiculous.

NYI would have you believe this is the way

[mll]

20 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Repeating a false narrative doesn’t make it true. 
 

Johnson and Killorn were the names being tossed around the most at that time Killorn had a season where he dipped from 47 points to 40. And Johnson had really regressed as well. Miller was a win for Benning no matter how you slice it and to say otherwise shows your lack of objectivity. 
 

Hope this helps. 

Killorn and Johnson both had full NTCs - ie they couldn't be traded without their consent.  

 

Miller was the player they were looking to trade though and he also didn't have a trade clause.  He was also a healthy scratch a game or two towards the end of the season and even demoted to the 4th line.   

[canuck73_3]

18 minutes ago, AV. said:

I agree.  This idea that Killorn's name was out there is simply one contrived in your head lmfao.

 

Doesn't matter if Miller scored 200 pts or 20 pts.  Canucks paid a premium for a player that the other team NEEDED to move.  And last I checked, we haven't done anything with him on the team.  Bubble playoff run?  Bar quite low if that's a "win"

Them moving Killorn was widely talked about and speculated, you plugging your ears and stamping your feet does not change that. Lmfao. 
 

Tampa didn’t NEED to move Miller specifically. Again you repeating this does not make it fact. 
 

If you think 1 player acquisition is needed to push the team to the playoffs it really shows your lack of understanding of the game. A 99 point player for a lotto ticket is a win, period. 

[HKSR]

10 minutes ago, AV. said:

I agree.  This idea that Killorn's name was out there is simply one contrived in your head lmfao.

 

Doesn't matter if Miller scored 200 pts or 20 pts.  Canucks paid a premium for a player that the other team NEEDED to move.  And last I checked, we haven't done anything with him on the team.  Bubble playoff run?  Bar quite low if that's a "win"

I think it's important to clarify that Tampa didn't NEED to move Miller.  What they NEEDED to do was move one of Miller, Palat, or Killorn. 

 

Palat was the preference.  He was making about the same as Miller (a bit more actually), but put up a measly 34pts in 64 games. 

Killorn and Miller were probably a toss up.  Killorn was on a lower cap hit, but also produced a bit less. 

 

The situation was that Palat and Killorn had NTCs, whereas Miller didn't.  To move Palat or Killorn, they'd have to ask them to waive their NTC, so the EASIEST move was to trade Miller.  They found a team willing to give them good value for him, so they took it.  If Vancouver offered a 2nd round pick and Mazanec, you could be assured that Tampa would have simply said no, and moved onto Plan B. 

 

Just remember that Tampa had options, just like Vancouver does right now.  Miller was putting up Top 6 numbers on the 3rd line, so a 1st round (20th OA) pick, a 3rd, and a throw-in piece in Mazanec is probably not far off in terms of value.

 

Put it another way, Miller had 47 points in 75 games on a very reasonable cap hit for long term similar to Garland for the Canucks right now.

What do you expect a guy like Garland to cost?  A late 1st and a 3rd wouldn't be that far off in value IMO.

 

 

[canuck73_3]

2 minutes ago, mll said:

Killorn and Johnson both had full NTCs - ie they couldn't be traded without their consent.  

 

Miller was the player they were looking to trade though and he also didn't have a trade clause.  He was also a healthy scratch a game or two towards the end of the season and even demoted to the 4th line.   

Just because they had NTC’s did not make them immovable, nor not discussed. The Miller narrative to discredit Benning has been squashed numerous times and only perpetuated by the clueless at this point. Makes sense that AV is still whining about it. 
 

You can credit Benning with a W when he has one he’s not getting re-hired. 

[canuck73_3]

4 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I think it's important to clarify that Tampa didn't NEED to move Miller.  What they NEEDED to do was move one of Miller, Palat, or Killorn. 

 

Palat was the preference.  He was making about the same as Miller (a bit more actually), but put up a measly 34pts in 64 games. 

Killorn and Miller were probably a toss up.  Killorn was on a lower cap hit, but also produced a bit less. 

 

The situation was that Palat and Killorn had NTCs, whereas Miller didn't.  To move Palat or Killorn, they'd have to ask them to waive their NTC, so the EASIEST move was to trade Miller.  They found a team willing to give them good value for him, so they took it.  If Vancouver offered a 2nd round pick and Mazanec, you could be assured that Tampa would have simply said no, and moved onto Plan B. 

 

Just remember that Tampa had options, just like Vancouver does right now.  Miller was putting up Top 6 numbers on the 3rd line, so a 1st round (20th OA) pick, a 3rd, and a throw-in piece in Mazanec is probably not far off in terms of value.

 

Put it another way, Miller had 47 points in 75 games on a very reasonable cap hit for long term similar to Garland for the Canucks right now.

What do you expect a guy like Garland to cost?  A late 1st and a 3rd wouldn't be that far off in value IMO.

 

 

Downside of the bias they only look at options that suit their narrative and ignore the full picture.