[Signing] Canucks re-sign J.T. Miller

[Wanless]

1 hour ago, Shayster007 said:

Neither do I. I don't think any of those are correct though. Kuzmenko and Pearson in my eyes are Miller's winger's. Pearson and Miller played some of their best hockey together. Both are responsible and willing to do the hard work on the boards and could help shelter Kuzmenko while he learns the NA game.

 

Funny enough, neither are an option.

I wont disagree with Pearson but i think he will be with Horvat and Garland to make a solid 2way line

 

Kuzmenko Petey Boeser as the primary scoring line with mainly offensive zone starts

[Gawdzukes]

44 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I'm not convinced that Dermott struggling in TO means he can't find his game here, to the level of a 2nd pairing player. If he's coachable he's got a chance. 

 

 

nyet. We can't be this desperate, not yet. I'd rather we try to lock him up for 8 years out of his ELC at a good price. 

 

Lets see how this thing shakes out. Expecting Dermott to be an average 2nd pair d, and Rathbone a 3rd pair d isn't too unrealistic imo. 

Oh yeah by desperate I mean in a year or two if no other opportunities present themselves.

 

I think if we can somehow get Schenn off Hughes line he's a great partner who could make Rathbone successful from the get go. Dermott is a wildcard. I don't really know if BB would even play him on the second pairing. We'll see, who knows maybe Keeper makes the team.

[canuck73_3]

30 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

Man, the toxic positivity here is real right now. It's ok to have different opinions, but the board line bullying of people who have different opinions is kinda weird. Makes for pretty un-fun hockey debates.

Deb said it pretty perfectly, can’t be called blind kool aid drinkers for believing he’d stay and not giving some back when he does. I’m going to dish it out as much as I take it and rightfully so. 
 

This will never be a kumbaya fest here and expecting that is futile imo. If we’re going to get called out for our opinions we're gonna push back when they’re correct and pointing out a fact is hardly toxicity. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by canuck73_3

[MeanSeanBean]

9 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

Goes around comes around stuff....has gone both ways and, yes, would be nice if it'd stop.

 

Those of us on the side of retaining Miller took a lot of "homer, Koolaid drinking" stuff. Told we're fans of the players not the team and many insinuations made that we just don't know hockey and others were superior in their knowledge. So it's just part of having our moment because we ARE happy he's here and we did know a thing or two. For me, about negotiations and how they work. It ain't over till it's over.

 

But we are all Canucks and everyone's opinions matter. There are two sides to the coin and it's all a matter of how we view it on a personal basis, that's all.

It would be nice if it stopped. But with all due respect, I don't think you're in the position to be saying that after reading the majority of this thread. 

 

It's a bummer if you felt personally attacked on your views, it shouldn't be like that if you're supporting the team. We are all here to support the same team. I didn't personally witness any of that so I can't speak of that.

 

But it feels weird to be calling out those who were on the opposite side of the coin in this thread. Why would those people stay for the debate when they are clearly being attacked for their opinion? Not a particularly engaging conversation to be had. 

 

I've been around CDC for long enough (I'm definitely in the elders of this community) to have been both overly positive and on more of the critical side of the conversation. But this thread kinda confuses me reading through. I haven't really read anyone being downright pissed about this signing. Even those who thought the best course of action was a trade seem to be thinking this is a good move now, but could be hard to navigate in the final few years. But even those who are taking that stance are being called out as Negative Nancy's and then further called out if they stop engaging.

 

The JT debate was, in my opinion, one of the more engaging debates in CDC in a long while. But I could see how posters wouldn't want to continue with the debate after how this thread has played out.

 

I've reay been pretty silent on the subject for the most part, but do find this whole thing pretty interesting from the outside looking in. 

[AV.]

12 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Trading a player part way through a deal and trading a player before they even play one game on their new deal are two very different things.

You haven’t even seen if they can live up to the new deal or not. You basically just had a change of heart and wanna back out of it.

 

That’s bad business practice and sure other players may still sign with them, but I guarantee more than a few players/agents were turned off by that. And I would think they’d be a little hesitant to sign any deal without immediate no trade protection.

 

Flyers should have been bothered when they saw both those players hoist the cup twice in the next couple years. If they had off ice issues they should have been resolved internally and had the right leadership above them brought in. Someone like Sutter clearly had them focused to be the best players they could be.

 

The team has never had a direction since then, so I’m not sure every Flyers fan isn’t regretting the impulsive decision Holmgren made. 

Now you're jumping from ownership to fans.  In that case...

Here's what just a small portion of some fans have to say a decade on.  https://brotherlypuck.com/2021/06/23/ten-years-later-the-richards-and-carter-trades/
Did the Flyers win the trades? Strictly on a value level, absolutely. On a quest to the ultimate goal to win a Stanley Cup? No.

Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me.  It's obvious everybody in Philadelphia, from ownership to fans, would prefer a cup, but as far as what they received in return, they couldn't have done much better.  Similarly to the JT Miller to Vancouver trade, the inability to build a good enough team doesn't suddenly make the deal a bad one, and Tampa Bay parlaying our 1st into Blake Coleman (securing two cups) doesn't mean we lost out value-wise.

[canuck73_3]

12 minutes ago, Wanless said:

Has the potential of a solid shut down line that plays the hard matchups

 

I think its also time for me to declare 

 

I believe Miller will be in the selke conversation this year

If he cuts out the giving up on plays like he said he’s working on that may be true but if it is more of the same he’ll get some token votes but not a true contender. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by canuck73_3

[Wanless]

14 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

Goes around comes around stuff....has gone both ways and, yes, would be nice if it'd stop.

 

Those of us on the side of retaining Miller took a lot of "homer, Koolaid drinking" stuff. Told we're fans of the players not the team and many insinuations made that we just don't know hockey and others were superior in their knowledge. So it's just part of having our moment because we ARE happy he's here and we did know a thing or two. For me, about negotiations and how they work. It ain't over till it's over.

 

But we are all Canucks and everyone's opinions matter. There are two sides to the coin and it's all a matter of how we view it on a personal basis, that's all.

I fully support you deb

 

it really shows who people are when they arent right with their predictions when they start to question legit winners in front office. And then to go on and say its toxic because we are stoked Miller is here.

 

So many times I've seen the pro trade Miller posters insult and arrogantly discredit without proof and just hard language responses to the pro signing posters. And now to hear one talk about the toxic atmosphere the pro signers are created!? Come on

 

Good on you Deb for always being a voice of reason and support of the team and roster without ever discriminating or being mean. Lord knows that while I have followed some pf the discussions youve been a part of with the posters who cannot see past their vacuum view of team management that i would have lost it and likely been banned due to their stubborn arrogance.

 

 

[Alflives]

14 minutes ago, Wanless said:

Has the potential of a solid shut down line that plays the hard matchups

 

I think its also time for me to declare 

 

I believe Miller will be in the selke conversation this year

Miller in the Selke conversation?  If he is, then Petey has pushed past him into our number one (scoring) centre spot.  We would be a very good team with Miller playing that role, providing we got much needed partners for Quinn and OEL.

[Wanless]

7 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

If he cuts out the giving up on plays like he said he’s working on that may be true but if it is more of the same he’ll get some token votes but not a true contender. 

As far as him giving up on plays i see that as him reading the play for what it is and realizing he cant change the outcome.

 

It looks a lot worse than it actually is and he generally picks up and check as he is on his way back

[DeNiro]

8 minutes ago, AV. said:

Now you're jumping from ownership to fans.  In that case...

Here's what just a small portion of some fans have to say a decade on.  https://brotherlypuck.com/2021/06/23/ten-years-later-the-richards-and-carter-trades/
Did the Flyers win the trades? Strictly on a value level, absolutely. On a quest to the ultimate goal to win a Stanley Cup? No.

Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me.  It's obvious everybody in Philadelphia, from ownership to fans, would prefer a cup, but as far as what they received in return, they couldn't have done much better.  Similarly to the JT Miller to Vancouver trade, the inability to build a good enough team doesn't suddenly make the deal a bad one, and Tampa Bay parlaying our 1st into Blake Coleman (securing two cups) doesn't mean we lost out value-wise.

“Some fans”
 

I’m not arguing they didn’t get good value. I’m saying they didn’t need to make the trades in the first place.
 

Holmgren made an impulsive move and it cost them a real chance at a cup. He clearly had no direction after that which is why he was replaced a couple seasons later. 

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by DeNiro

[-DLC-]

40 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

It would be nice if it stopped. But with all due respect, I don't think you're in the position to be saying that after reading the majority of this thread. 

 

It's a bummer if you felt personally attacked on your views, it shouldn't be like that if you're supporting the team. We are all here to support the same team. I didn't personally witness any of that so I can't speak of that.

 

But it feels weird to be calling out those who were on the opposite side of the coin in this thread. Why would those people stay for the debate when they are clearly being attacked for their opinion? Not a particularly engaging conversation to be had. 

 

I've been around CDC for long enough (I'm definitely in the elders of this community) to have been both overly positive and on more of the critical side of the conversation. But this thread kinda confuses me reading through. I haven't really read anyone being downright pissed about this signing. Even those who thought the best course of action was a trade seem to be thinking this is a good move now, but could be hard to navigate in the final few years. But even those who are taking that stance are being called out as Negative Nancy's and then further called out if they stop engaging.

 

The JT debate was, in my opinion, one of the more engaging debates in CDC in a long while. But I could see how posters wouldn't want to continue with the debate after how this thread has played out.

 

I've reay been pretty silent on the subject for the most part, but do find this whole thing pretty interesting from the outside looking in. 

I suggest you don't start here, go into the other thread to see how this unfolds in its entirety. Again, I wish it would stop too but I am in a position to say this because what I endure in thread is only surface value. There's a lot that goes on that probably shouldn't. If you only knew.

 

Report anything you see that needs attention. But we're having a pretty good discussion from what I can see...everyone's being fairly respectful.

[Gurn]

16 minutes ago, Wanless said:

And now to hear one talk about the toxic atmosphere

I think this is a pretty good example of just what Shayster is saying.

But to prove or show Shayster or myself wrong:

Can you please post quotes of  5 of Shayster's previous posts that makes you label him  as one of the toxic people?

Edited September 5, 2022 by gurn
? added.

[-DLC-]

3 minutes ago, Wanless said:

As far as him giving up on plays i see that as him reading the play for what it is and realizing he cant change the outcome.

 

It looks a lot worse than it actually is and he generally picks up and check as he is on his way back

That's my take too.

 

He's not going to waste energy trying to be a superhero when he knows the play's already long gone the other way. 

 

And usually the next shift he's out there, he's on fire. I think he plays best when he's pissed off (mostly at himself). The game's a LOT faster moving at ice level than how it seems on TV....they're flying out there.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Wanless said:

As far as him giving up on plays i see that as him reading the play for what it is and realizing he cant change the outcome.

 

It looks a lot worse than it actually is and he generally picks up and check as he is on his way back

No he doesn’t.  Miller is a very good player, but (without us having the puck) transitioning to defence is a big weakness in his game.  He’s not fleet of foot, and does way too often get caught on the wrong side of the puck.  Not so much as Bo does, but (when playing a responsible game as a centre) just can’t happen so often.  

[Wanless]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Miller in the Selke conversation?  If he is, then Petey has pushed past him into our number one (scoring) centre spot.  We would be a very good team with Miller playing that role, providing we got much needed partners for Quinn and OEL.

Thats where i see it going

 

petey will be strictly offence playing with Boeser and Kuzmenko

 

Miller with play against the other teams top line with Mikayev and Podkolzin

 

I would expect that Millers and Horvats lines will put up roughly the same numbers 5v5 with Petey feasting on the weaker lines of the other team and play a purely offensive role

 

We’ll see what BB decides and if he wants Miller in that role

[bishopshodan]

I dont see any real toxic stuff. Thicken up your skins if you do, this is hockey. 

 

I mean, if anyone is worried about being wrong in the future just ask me for guidance. 

[Alflives]

Just now, Wanless said:

Thats where i see it going

 

petey will be strictly offence playing with Boeser and Kuzmenko

 

Miller with play against the other teams top line with Mikayev and Podkolzin

 

I would expect that Millers and Horvats lines will put up roughly the same numbers 5v5 with Petey feasting on the weaker lines of the other team and play a purely offensive role

 

We’ll see what BB decides and if he wants Miller in that role

Again, if Miller can play that role then we are two top four right side D (proper partners for Hughes and OEL) from being Cup contenders.  I just don’t see that type of commitment to the game without the puck in Miller’s game.  Would be great for us if he realizes that’s what is best for our team, but not too sure he has that willingness to give up 30 points to be that guy.  But he does have a long term deal now, so hopefully he can make that sacrifice for the team.  Much like what Yzerman did for the Wings.  And what Trottier did for the Pens.  He could be so good at that role too.  

 

[Wanless]

4 minutes ago, gurn said:

I think this is a pretty good example of just what Shayster is saying.

But to prove or show Shayster or myself wrong:

Can you please post quotes of  5 of Shayster's previous posts that makes you label him  as one of the toxic people/

Im not saying he is toxic or you or anyone in particular 

 

but the pro trade crowd approached the debate with such conviction and righteousness that this in and of itself created a toxic environment 

 

there were times when i was suggesting that it would be Garland who traded or Boeser and i would have multiple people insisting that those were terrible ideas and it was only ever to be Miller

 

The immediate dismissal of ideas that didnt support trading Miller is what was toxic. I felt that at times that if you werent in favour your point would be squeezed out of conversation 

[MeanSeanBean]

20 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Deb said it pretty perfectly, can’t be called blind kool aid drinkers for believing he’d stay and not giving some back when he does. I’m going to dish it out as much as I take it and rightfully so. 
 

This will never be a kumbaya fest here and expecting that is futile imo. If we’re going to get called out for our opinions we're gonna push back when they’re correct and pointing out a fact is hardly toxicity. 

Baiting people is toxic online, in my opinion, and that is what I was referring to. The message I originally replied to of yours had nothing to do with Miller. It was just a call out trying to bait people back into an argument. That to me isn't a hockey debate, it's argument for the sake of argument.

 

 

[Goal:thecup]

4 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

It would be nice if it stopped. But with all due respect, I don't think you're in the position to be saying that after reading the majority of this thread. 

 

It's a bummer if you felt personally attacked on your views, it shouldn't be like that if you're supporting the team. We are all here to support the same team. I didn't personally witness any of that so I can't speak of that.

 

But it feels weird to be calling out those who were on the opposite side of the coin in this thread. Why would those people stay for the debate when they are clearly being attacked for their opinion? Not a particularly engaging conversation to be had. 

 

I've been around CDC for long enough (I'm definitely in the elders of this community) to have been both overly positive and on more of the critical side of the conversation. But this thread kinda confuses me reading through. I haven't really read anyone being downright pissed about this signing. Even those who thought the best course of action was a trade seem to be thinking this is a good move now, but could be hard to navigate in the final few years. But even those who are taking that stance are being called out as Negative Nancy's and then further called out if they stop engaging.

 

The JT debate was, in my opinion, one of the more engaging debates in CDC in a long while. But I could see how posters wouldn't want to continue with the debate after how this thread has played out.

 

I've reay been pretty silent on the subject for the most part, but do find this whole thing pretty interesting from the outside looking in. 

I think I understand where you are coming from.

I also think a few of your suppositions do not hold.

e.g: we felt attacked by the overly-adamant and put up with it for a very long time with a considerable amount of respect; we might be expected to extract some good-humored ribbing in return. imo oc

e.g: without naming names, which would be improper, we are serving crow to those who know, who they are, and what they typed; in addition most have responded very well.

Nobody is downright pissed and rightfully so.

We are still all Canucks; regardless of the marketing of that phrase.  

This is not only a great day for people who wanted to keep JT, it is a great weekend for Canucks fans!