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

[BigTramFan]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

I doubt we get the D we need/want for just Boeser. Thrilled if it happens!...But wingers just don't have that kind of value alone.

Well in my scenario (which again is just one example of an approach, don't want too get too caught up in extreme detail) we would have already signed UFA Severson in 2023 as our 1RD to pair with Hughes for the next 6 years. Moving Boeser in 2024 and replacing his spot with an ELC like Klimovich would be to clear some cap space to allow pay rises for Pettersson, Podkolzin. But we would also look to get some assets out of a Boeser trade (either more ELCs, more picks, or good roster players who are cheap or on retained salary). Cheers

[aGENT]

12 minutes ago, Mustard Tiger said:

Many seem to think it must be a winger for the T4D we need all in one trade. When does that happen? Lol. It would be a winger for picks and prospects as those have most value when trying to aquire a T4D in a separate trade.

 

If the chemistry is there, we may be in a position to sell a winger with inflated stats while still maintaining our playoff pace. We all have seen TDL prices, We don't need to pretend like the market doesn't fluctuate 

[Angry Goose]

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The Miller extension essentially stated that this year is their year to make changes and after this one the window needs to be firmly open.

 

I am not a big believer in the “make the playoffs and anything can happen” approach. It’s simply not at all true or reliable. 
 

Honestly will not be surprised if Hoglander is traded this year. I hope not as I think long term he has a place but I just think he might be moved.

Maybe this team (led by their key young players/Miller) will become a strong playoff team maybe not, but I still wouldnt try to force anything to make that happen. But before you can decide anything, the first step is becoming a consistent playoff team. That’s what I want to see.  And do it without bankrupting the long term

[Mustard Tiger]

9 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

It would likely take a winger and picks to get back that quality D. 
 

The problem is the Canucks have not really ever had any appetite to trade roster players at the deadline for any reason if there is even a sliver of hope for the playoffs (which the loser point guarantees for almost every team now at the TDL). 

Well now that we are what 50+ years with zero success maybe we get a little luck and at least build some value up in our redundant players lol... All new everyone so I'll give them a chance before doubting 

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, Angry Goose said:

Maybe this team (led by their key young players/Miller) will become a strong playoff team maybe not, but I still wouldnt try to force anything to make that happen. But before you can decide anything, the first step is becoming a consistent playoff team. That’s what I want to see.  And do it without bankrupting the long term

Maybe. But unfortunately it will take a couple of forces moves (and expensive ones most likely) to repair the cap situation long term. 

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, Mustard Tiger said:

Well now that we are what 50+ years with zero success maybe we get a little luck and at least build some value up in our redundant players lol... All new everyone so I'll give them a chance before doubting 

I don’t think we actually have many garbage players on the roster. We have a lot of inflated contracts for them though which is what kills their value.

 

I hope the Canucks try something different than the usual get in the playoffs and anything can happen approach to asset management. Get in the playoffs but manage assets effectively at the TDL. 

[Angry Goose]

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Maybe. But unfortunately it will take a couple of forces moves (and expensive ones most likely) to repair the cap situation long term. 

Miller and OEL are the only real long term commitments that carry older age risk. The cap will be going up significantly. If the mgmt play their cards right they can still ice a competitive team with mortgaging futures.

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

Well in my scenario (which again is just one example of an approach, don't want too get too caught up in extreme detail) we would have already signed UFA Severson in 2023 as our 1RD to pair with Hughes for the next 6 years. Moving Boeser in 2024 and replacing his spot with an ELC like Klimovich would be to clear some cap space to allow pay rises for Pettersson, Podkolzin. But we would also look to get some assets out of a Boeser trade (either more ELCs, more picks, or good roster players who are cheap or on retained salary). Cheers

Severson feels like a bit of a band-aid like half measure if I'm being honest. He's an "ok" top 4 guy.... Is that really what we want to settle for?

 

Band-aids may, unfortunately, be the best we can do, and it is certainly an improvement from what we're currently running...but is it enough? Where's the cap coming from to sign Severson again? The cheaper than realistic Myers trade was it?

 

I dunno...seems like a lot of wishful thinking and half measures.

[wallstreetamigo]

6 minutes ago, Angry Goose said:

Miller and OEL are the only real long term commitments that carry older age risk. The cap will be going up significantly. If the mgmt play their cards right they can still ice a competitive team with mortgaging futures.

But older age risk is not the only risk in the mix. Every dollar spent has to be judged not only on its face value but also the opportunity cost of improvements that could be made to the roster. 
 

The cap might go way up but contracts are far outgrowing available cap every year. I really don’t see how the cap increases can keep up with the cost of core players short or long term at this pace, which squeezes out depth even more over time. 

[DeNiro]

33 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

We have the assets to acquire one. We just won’t like the price paid.

 

I agree that drafting D in earlier rounds should have been a much higher priority than wingers especially.

Every team has the assets not every team can afford to part with them.

 

We could get Chychrun for Pearson and two 1sts tomorrow if we really wanted to. Is that a price we’re willing to pay is a whole other question.

[Angry Goose]

12 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

But older age risk is not the only risk in the mix. Every dollar spent has to be judged not only on its face value but also the opportunity cost of improvements that could be made to the roster. 
 

The cap might go way up but contracts are far outgrowing available cap every year. I really don’t see how the cap increases can keep up with the cost of core players short or long term at this pace, which squeezes out depth even more over time. 

opportunity cost is a concern if mgmt doesnt make smart roster decisions. I suspect we will see more moves like the Dermott/Hamonic one over the course of time.  Their key

guys other than EP are locked up for a little while at least.  Im not too worried about re-signing podz/hoagie.  As long as this team/players have a good season(s), it will create opportunities to tweak things.  

 

[BigTramFan]

44 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Severson feels like a bit of a band-aid like half measure if I'm being honest. He's an "ok" top 4 guy.... Is that really what we want to settle for?

 

Band-aids may, unfortunately, be the best we can do, and it is certainly an improvement from what we're currently running...but is it enough? Where's the cap coming from to sign Severson again? The cheaper than realistic Myers trade was it?

 

I dunno...seems like a lot of wishful thinking and half measures.

I think my examples are realistic and are a better approach than your original comment that we need to trade 2 forwards (Boeser & Garland were the 2 you mentioned) to get a top 4 RD. Why don't you sketch out your great trade ideas and I will assess whether they are realistic or half baked?

[aGENT]

56 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

I think my examples are realistic and are a better approach than your original comment that we need to trade 2 forwards (Boeser & Garland were the 2 you mentioned) to get a top 4 RD. Why don't you sketch out your great trade ideas and I will assess whether they are realistic or half baked?

I said one of Boeser OR Garland, likely packaged with someone like Rathbone OR Hoglander and likely 3rd piece (pick, B prospect etc). I doubt anyone is giving us a legit top pair RHD for JUST Boeser OR Garland. Seems unrealistic.

 

Also seems unrealistic that we'd clear all of Myers $6m hit while only giving up a late pick in the current cap environment. At least not before the 24 TDL. I think we could easily trade him next summer...if we were taking back cap. Bu that doesn't solve the cap issue you're trying to address.

 

And again, that just kicks the can down the road when players are due raises.

[Jester13]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I said one of Boeser OR Garland, likely packaged with someone like Rathbone OR Hoglander and likely 3rd piece (pick, B prospect etc). I doubt anyone is giving us a legit top pair RHD for JUST Boeser OR Garland. Seems unrealistic.

 

Also seems unrealistic that we'd clear all of Myers $6m hit while only giving up a late pick in the current cap environment. At least not before the 24 TDL. I think we could easily trade him next summer...if we were taking back cap. Bu that doesn't solve the cap issue you're trying to address.

 

And again, that just kicks the can down the road when players are due raises.

Garland, Hoglander, and a pick isn't the worst idea if we really do get back a legit top pair rhd. We have so much winger depth now on our team and coming up in the system that it wouldn't really hurt us long term, but it could benefit us like crazy for the next four to five years of actually contending. 

 

If this happens while keeping our centre depth of Bo, Miller, and Petey then sign me up. 

[DeNiro]

Garland is top 10 in drawing penalties over the last 3 seasons.

 

Remember that when throwing him in every trade proposal. 
 

Our powerplay will be key to winning games for us and he puts us on the powerplay more than almost anyone in the league.

[Jester13]

8 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Garland is top 10 in drawing penalties over the last 3 seasons.

 

Remember that when throwing him in every trade proposal. 
 

Our powerplay will be key to winning games for us and he puts us on the powerplay more than almost anyone in the league.

Of course, but if it means we get back a true top rhd then it makes us a better team, no? 

[DeNiro]

2 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Of course, but if it means we get back a true top rhd then it makes us a better team, no? 

Depends on the D.

 

I don’t see many teams with an extra RHD they’re willing to part with.

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Of course, but if it means we get back a true top rhd then it makes us a better team, no? 

Would Garland for Adam Larson (Seattle) be a fair trade and about what you’re suggesting?  

[J-Dizzle]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Would Garland for Adam Larson (Seattle) be a fair trade and about what you’re suggesting?  

Fair yes (or at least close imho)…realistic no. 

[Jester13]

17 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Depends on the D.

 

I don’t see many teams with an extra RHD they’re willing to part with.

But of course.

 

And I agree that I don't know if many teams are willing to trade a legit top rhd, but I'd be down if we actually could. 

 

14 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Would Garland for Adam Larson (Seattle) be a fair trade and about what you’re suggesting?  

Maybe, but I haven't been following Seattle enough to know if Larsson has been playing well enough to be that legit guy for us. I'd rather still add and get a legit guy who is defensive but also can put up points, as that would really set us up for contending.