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

[HKSR]

1 minute ago, AV. said:

Well, first off, thanks for linking the article.  That said, Miller was clearly the #1 question mark ahead of the others, and the speculation was clear enough a few years ago that it would be Miller to go.  Miller's reputation as a team player in NYR + his deployment in Tampa Bay made him a top choice to be moved.  And again, not having certain movement protections was the key in making a deal happen.

The "premium" was not holding Tampa Bay to the sword where we could and should have.  History knows teams have put us to the sword many times, history shows other teams holding each other to the sword (Colorado getting Devon Toews is a great example).  But, in this case, you believe that other teams were offering similar deals to Vancouver and that Tampa Bay had contingency plans.  I don't believe that was the case, so better to agree to disagree at this time.

Miller was the easiest player to move.  I'd say the biggest question mark was around Palat, who was clearly declining in production and ability.  He was also making more than Miller, and was older too.  Like I said, Tampa's ideal situation would have been to move Palat, but they also recognize they would do what's best for their team.  So when the Canucks offered a fair deal for a versatile top 6 level scoring winger in JT Miller, they took that deal.  If the Canucks offered less, they would have just said no and moved Palat or Killorn instead (albeit at a lesser return).

 

There was no way to hold a sword to Tampa.  They didn't have only one choice.  To think that Tampa couldn't move Palat or Killorn for a late draft pick would be naive.  It's not like they were useless players. 

 

Anyways, like you said, that's where we need to agree to disagree.

[AV.]

1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

I don’t think that is all that valid an argument as that team has been a dumpster fire for over 2 decades. 
 

Not even remotely a good example of “weaponizing” cap space or making good personnel moves. 

Ok, well, thanks for sharing your opinions on what's good and isn't good in general management and front office operations.

If you believe (1) Garland is better for the Arizona Coyotes in 2022 than multiple picks and prospects to be gained from using cap-space to take on bad deals so that one those picks and prospect may help to be part of a contender in the future, by all means.

[canuck73_3]

Just now, AV. said:

Ok, well, thanks for sharing your opinions on what's good and isn't good in general management and front office operations.

If you believe (1) Garland is better for the Arizona Coyotes in 2022 than multiple picks and prospects to be gained from using cap-space to take on bad deals so that one those picks and prospect may help to be part of a contender in the future, by all means.

If Arizona was good at asset management or weaponizing cap space they’d have been relevant in the last 25 years. 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

If Arizona was good at asset management or weaponizing cap space they’d have been relevant in the last 25 years. 

Sigh.  Has Bill Armstrong has been running the team for the last 25 years?

C'mon now...

[canuck73_3]

33 minutes ago, AV. said:

Sigh.  Has Bill Armstrong has been running the team for the last 25 years?

C'mon now...

Not sold on any of their management because of the last 25 years. 

[EddieVedder]

On 5/9/2022 at 11:28 AM, Alflives said:

One of OEL or Myers will be moved this summer.  Whichever costs us less to  dump.  

I doubt either of them leave.  The team doesnt have replacements.

[DeNiro]

7 minutes ago, EddieVedder said:

I doubt either of them leave.  The team doesnt have replacements.

Canucks need to sign someone to replace them.

 

They need a Hakanpaa like signing. A big stay at home defender making 1.5 mil and playing a key top 4 role for Dallas.

 

Thats all we would need to replace Myers.

[Gawdzukes]

21 hours 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.

Umm. I said nothing at all about keeping Miller. I'm talking about this stupidity of calling the Miller trade a loss and criticizing  Benning for the trade. It's piling on, it's over the top, it's not true. Call it what you want. Its just plain stupid. 

[Gawdzukes]

19 hours ago, mll said:

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.

 

16 hours 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. 

Yep, they were absolutely looking to move Johnson or Killorn ideally. It was well rumored at the time and obvious to those who follow hockey. Miller was actually coming off a fairly mediocre year with little market desire/availability and a $5m contract. Really they simply had to sell one one of a handful of guys when JB swooped in and jumped on Miller.

 

In hindsight it was an absolute master stroke. Really no two ways about it when you look at what we got out of him. He's worth more than we paid 3 years later,  he's put up 217 points, he's been a backbone of the team, and he's an absolute fan favorite. What is there to argue lol?

 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Gawdzukes

[DrJockitch]

49 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

Umm. I said nothing at all about keeping Miller. I'm talking about this stupidity of calling the Miller trade a loss and criticizing  Benning for the trade. It's piling on, it's over the top, it's not true. Call it what you want. Its just plain stupid. 

We can tell it was a success for Miller but was it really a success for the Team?

What team success do we have to show for trading a first and a third?

We almost made the playoffs one year and got into the bubble in a season we wouldn’t have made the playoffs. 
We gave up a first+ to get a player that took us all the way to almost making the playoffs and are calling it a success?

I guess we got lower draft picks, yeah us. 

[Gawdzukes]

53 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

We can tell it was a success for Miller but was it really a success for the Team?

What team success do we have to show for trading a first and a third?

We almost made the playoffs one year and got into the bubble in a season we wouldn’t have made the playoffs. 
We gave up a first+ to get a player that took us all the way to almost making the playoffs and are calling it a success?

I guess we got lower draft picks, yeah us. 

Well we could trade him today for more than a first and a third. The player selected with that first pick has played zero games in the NHL and  has 18 points in 3 years in Russia. We got 202 games and 217 points from Miller. In that sense we get a ppg player free for 3 years and can reinvest in a new 1st and third round pick ++ today/July. That's what I would call mightily successful. 

 

Miller has been pretty close to our best player. I don't think we would have played better with no one, do you? So we've had more success than we would have without him right ... not sure how you define success but I don't know how you're going to argue that. Or are you claiming Miller has made the team worse? Wow ... I'm speechless if so. I thought we were already at the bottom of this pit.  That's a new one.

 

No we didn't win the SC but that's clearly a successful trade in my books. I guess if one wants to be a schmuck no trade is good unless you win a Cup then right? Very few successful trades in the  NHL if you look at it like this I guess.

 

As I sit here typing this I wonder what bizarro world I'm in, or what planet I'm on where I'm up at 6 am defending the idea that JT Miller was a good trade for the Canucks.  

 

Bizarre... How utterly bizarre! I'm totally using that word every time I can today. 

 

BIZARRE!

 

https://youtu.be/nc_f-0DCGI0

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Gawdzukes

[DrJockitch]

2 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:

Well we could trade him today for more than a first and a third. The player selected with that first pick has played zero games in the NHL and  has 18 points in 3 years in Russia. We got 202 games and 217 points from Miller. In that sense we get a ppg player free for 3 years and can reinvest in a new 1st and third round pick ++ today/July. That's what I would call mightily successful. 

 

Miller has been pretty close to our best player. I don't think we would have played better with no one, do you? So we've had more success than we would have without him right ... not sure how you define success but I don't know how you're going to argue that. Or are you claiming Miller has made the team worse? Wow ... I'm speechless if so. I thought we were already at the bottom of this pit.  That's a new one.

 

No we didn't win the SC but that's clearly a successful trade in my books. I guess if one wants to be a schmuck no trade is good unless you win a Cup then right? Very few successful trades in the  NHL if you look at it like this I guess.

 

As I sit here typing this I wonder what bizarro world I'm in, or what planet I'm on where I'm up at 6 am defending the idea that JT Miller was a good trade for the Canucks.  

 

Bizarre... How utterly bizarre! I'm totally using that word every time I can today. 

 

BIZARRE!

 

https://youtu.be/nc_f-0DCGI0

 

I am just saying that the success of Miller has been to take a non-playoff team and turned them into a better non-playoff team. 

I do think a useful metric should be does a move get us closer to a cup.
Is trading for Miller progressing us towards cup contender or did it help us become another team in the squishy middle hoping their goalie gets hot enough to go on a run. 
Ultimately some level of team success needs to be thought about when looking at whether it was a successful trade and I prefer the measure of building towards a cup than building a possible playoff team if all goes well. 
Has the trade brought us closer to the Stanley cup, I am not sure it has.  With Miller playing his best hockey we are still not a playoff team and we are capped out, that’s a bad mix. 
In isolation absolutely a fair price to pay for Miller, but when looking at lifecycle of a team, that was Benning pulling the shoot on a rebuild way early and ultimately still not creating a contending team despite the price. A little more patience would likely have put us in better shape in building a contender but then again when a bad GM is making the moves, it may not have mattered. 

[HKSR]

7 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

I am just saying that the success of Miller has been to take a non-playoff team and turned them into a better non-playoff team. 

I do think a useful metric should be does a move get us closer to a cup.
Is trading for Miller progressing us towards cup contender or did it help us become another team in the squishy middle hoping their goalie gets hot enough to go on a run. 
Ultimately some level of team success needs to be thought about when looking at whether it was a successful trade and I prefer the measure of building towards a cup than building a possible playoff team if all goes well. 
Has the trade brought us closer to the Stanley cup, I am not sure it has.  With Miller playing his best hockey we are still not a playoff team and we are capped out, that’s a bad mix. 
In isolation absolutely a fair price to pay for Miller, but when looking at lifecycle of a team, that was Benning pulling the shoot on a rebuild way early and ultimately still not creating a contending team despite the price. A little more patience would likely have put us in better shape in building a contender but then again when a bad GM is making the moves, it may not have mattered. 

I guess the rebuttal to that is, is this the fault of Miller? Is he the problem that this team is not there?  Or is it a product of performance from guys like Dickinson, Poolman, and arguably Myers? Is 5.25m aav for Miller the past few years the issue? Or is it having 12m locked into 3 guys that don't bring enough for their contract value?

[Gurn]

26 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I guess the rebuttal to that is, is this the fault of Miller? Is he the problem that this team is not there?  Or is it a product of performance from guys like Dickinson, Poolman, and arguably Myers? Is 5.25m aav for Miller the past few years the issue? Or is it having 12m locked into 3 guys that don't bring enough for their contract value?

The issue will likely be signing Miller to a long term deal, where he doesn't bring enough for his contract value in years 4-6.

[HKSR]

12 minutes ago, gurn said:

The issue will likely be signing Miller to a long term deal, where he doesn't bring enough for his contract value in years 4-6.

I think they were arguing about whether or not the trade for Miller should be considered successful. 

[DrJockitch]

34 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I guess the rebuttal to that is, is this the fault of Miller? Is he the problem that this team is not there?  Or is it a product of performance from guys like Dickinson, Poolman, and arguably Myers? Is 5.25m aav for Miller the past few years the issue? Or is it having 12m locked into 3 guys that don't bring enough for their contract value?

I am in no way criticizing Miller, it is not his fault that Benning was a bad GM and he had no control anyway. 
The other contracts mentioned are just further symptoms of the root problem, a bad GM and an impatient owner pulling the plug on a rebuild that had just begun and was being handicapped by two of its high pics not working out and a constant trickle out of draft pics. 

Big fan of JTM though also see the holes in his game. My comments were not a criticism of him. He came in, played above his head and deserves whatever he gets in a contract. 
Whether it is with us or not or whether that would be appropriate are different questions.  
Tough spot for new management group.  Do they forge forward with Benning’s short circuited rebuild or do they try to shake things up and build around the cornerstones of Pettey, Quinn and Thatcher.  

[The Lock]

17 hours ago, AV. said:

Sigh.  Has Bill Armstrong has been running the team for the last 25 years?

C'mon now...

Armstrong at this point is unproven as he hasn't even been a head GM for 2 years. We don't even know what team Arizona will have in the long run, let alone whether he ends up proving to be a good GM or not. So far his moves have been alright, but they've only really been to do with "damage control" and/or "utilizing their cap space". He's done more "Gillis-like" moves in my opinion similar to how Gillis didn't really make a lot of "hockey trades".

Edited May 12, 2022 by The Lock

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Armstrong at this point is unproven as he hasn't even been a head GM for 2 years. We don't even know what team Arizona will have in the long run, let alone whether he ends up proving to be a good GM or not. So far his moves have been alright, but they've only really been to do with "damage control" and/or "utilizing their cap space".

That's not the point.  This isn't about him being a good GM, or if this is a good or bad move.

The user, despite being presented reputable evidence, "couldn't believe" that Arizona would walk away from Garland and tried to spin it as the same situation that happened with Toffoli in VAN, where incompetence couldn't get the signing over the line.  I was trying to dumb it down (as I usually have to) that Arizona's reasons for walking away had nothing to do with poor time management and more to do with wanting to move on from the player and use cap-space differently.  Nothing to do with it being a "good" move or not.

[The Lock]

10 minutes ago, AV. said:

That's not the point.  This isn't about him being a good GM, or if this is a good or bad move.

The user, despite being presented reputable evidence, "couldn't believe" that Arizona would walk away from Garland and tried to spin it as the same situation that happened with Toffoli in VAN, where incompetence couldn't get the signing over the line.  I was trying to dumb it down (as I usually have to) that Arizona's reasons for walking away had nothing to do with poor time management and more to do with wanting to move on from the player and use cap-space differently.  Nothing to do with it being a "good" move or not.

Really hard to say as I doubt we have all the information there. We don't know the exact series of events on neither Toffoli nor Garland

 

It is an interesting comparison though. I can see why you don't want there to be a comparison at all since that would probably make you a hypocrite, but there are at least minor similarities in terms of an apparent lack of communication.

 

Reading back on your conversation with him/her, I think the answer's kind of in the middle somewhere.

Edited May 12, 2022 by The Lock

[AV.]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Really hard to say as I doubt we have all the information there. We don't know the exact series of events on neither Toffoli nor Garland

 

It is an interesting comparison though. I can see why you don't want there to be a comparison at all since that would probably make you a hypocrite, but there are at least minor similarities in terms of an apparent lack of communication.

Respectfully, it is not AT ALL the same.

Armstrong ghosted Garland, moved him on, nothing was said about regret not signing him or bringing him back.
Benning ghosted Toffoli (and Tanev, by extension) because he was chasing Barrie and OEL, came out and expressed regret at not signing either guys and admitted he ran out of time.  Toffoli and Tanev themselves have alluded to this being the truth, numerous media members have also confirmed this.
 

So, no, not hard to say or see.  It's in plain sight.

But, yes, "poor communication" is the theme here, except one was deliberate because there wasn't interest in bringing the player back, and the other was because of incompetence to multi-task in free-agency.

If you'd like to find a proper comparison, here is Shawn Matthias talking about how the Canucks didn't have a single conversation with him about extension.  

You know, sometimes teams decide they want to move on from players.  That obviously wasn't the case with Toffoli in VAN like it was with Garland in ARZ and Matthias in VAN.