Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum-specific Rules
Forum Closure

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

-Vintage Canuck-
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Roger Neilsons Towel,

Just because the Language Filter is temporarily not working doesn’t mean the rules don’t apply. Don’t make me get the soap!
Recommended by Roger Neilsons Towel
  • Huggy Bear
  • Haha
  • Cheers
  • Thanks
  • Like

36 reactions

Go to this post
IBatch Canucks Hall-of-Famer

IBatch

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, aGENT said:

I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp...?:picard:

It's also not hard to grasp, how taking one of those guys away or two or three and filling those roles with Hutton, Stecher, Del Zotto, Guddy etc, quickly lowers the overall ability for those guys to do their job well.    That 2011 team had depth ... heck we paid the same cap percentage for Ballard to be the 7th D as what Myers costs now.    Edler and Tanev did what they could, but sure took a hit on their stats, and especially on their bodies while doing so.   

 

Of course cohesiveness matters.    OEL/Myers might not have put up as many points as we'd like, but both helped us score more goals then scored against 5 x 5,  11-12th overall against some hefty quality of competition.   Not ideal is their cap hits.    IF we added even one more top four D to that group, we'd see a positive reaction.    Who knows exactly whom they should target. And what that cost will be.    Someone on an RFA deal would be great.   That said believe they will have to pay the piper, as in overpay a vet to play that role.   
 

The team actually needs EP to be the player we all think he can become.   His cap hit was way too high for what we got out of him last season.    Miller at least, showed the team what value looks like.  Brock too.   Paying RFAs like UFAs is a tad ridiculous.   Get the reward often comes later ... well it didn't really come with Brock.   QHs one year so far thankfully.    OEL seems ok at his cap hit, and insulates the team if and when QHs misses games.    Myers..well i like how he plays in the post season, and we need his toughness, our D is pretty tame as a unit as it is.  
 

My wish list the past 3 years was Manson.   Get ANA would rather trade him outside the division, and especially get why he re-signed in COL (12% less taxes, and of course a cup team)... A Mitchell type.    Which i still rather have then Severson.   Who would that guy actually be?   QHs needs a Methot to EK ... as in a long standing partner, that compliments his game, and even allows QHs to play more in the O-zone ... Manson would have been perfect.    Severson is more of a succession plan for Myers then anything, which ive stated several times - not necessarily a guy to play with QHs, but with OEL.   

 

As for Devon Toews.   He only played two years for NYI, both seasons they almost went to the final...but didn't exactly put up eye popping stats, especially given he was playing behind Trotz who is of course the defensive wizard of his era.     Goes to show what can happen when going to a contender and playing on the same time as Makar, the best offensive D we've seen since EK was practically doing it by himself in OTT until Cooke severed his achilles' tendon.  

 

We need another legit top four D.   Severson for sure might not be the right guy, but it's not as simple as saying "I wanted Manson" etc.   31 other teams also might be interested.   And as far as free agents go, your usually lucky to get the ones available or have seriously overpaid.   We were lucky to get Myers.   Might have been the wrong timing.   But Miller and Myers together definitely improved our team.    

 

Unless Rathbone or some fluke college signing, or someone else in the system pops out of nowhere,  it's going to be awfully difficult to improve our D.   OEL of course came at a cost, but that deal was two years in the making.    I'd also like to see what he can do without Myers ... OEL Severson maybe he's a lot like Edler, as in a minus magnet when he's got no support on a rebuilding team ... but just fine once Myers is added and the team gets better .. i don't know.     But he won't cost more cap percentage wise then we were paying Ballard ... about what Myers current deal is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IBatch Canucks Hall-of-Famer

IBatch

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

That is the crux of it for me. Building a team, right now specifically a defense corps, requires complimentary pieces. 
 

The best way I can explain it is think 2011. 
Edler-Ehrhoff

Hamhuis-Bieksa

Ballard/Alberts/Rome-Salo

 

Pairings that could play the way the team was built to play and take on specific roles/usage that allowed the other pairs to take on their own role. Cup winning depth really means a group that fits well together imo. 

 

Thats the missing factor with our current D. Not terrible players, just a terrible collection when it comes to fitting together cohesively. 

Thing is, the better the team, the better the players are as a whole as well.   They push each other.    

 

We all were impressed with OEL when he came.   Some things even came as a surprise about his game, like the big Swedish chip he had on his shoulder.    Not expected but it exists (and not common ... Landeskog has this too), and not something we are used to either.   Edler hit but wasn't chippy.   

 

Point is, he settled Myers game down.   What would a pairing with Severson or someone else look like?   Poolman lol.  Not going to happen.   This teams needs another legit top four D.   Hamhuis Bieksa was our top pairing in 2011 too, not to be nit picky but you've got them inverted.   One year Bieksa actually tied for the league lead in even strength points for a d.    Wasn't used on the top PP unit, but that unit was used against the leagues best players.    Salo mr Glass, of course ended up in the top four when he was available too. 

 

That's the deepest D we've ever had.   And the best regular season team we've had as well.   Not many weaknesses, but if you re-call we lamented about not having a true number one, and a lack of wingers for Kesler.    Tried with Booth ... Ballard and Booth were the entire accumulation of cap savings, and both got bought out ... too bad (todays cap same as a 6 million dollar D or forward) which is truly too bad. 

 

I like this example, it explains two things.  One a team rarely if ever, doesn't lack something since the cap.    Our team will find it tricky to add a top for D without messing with our forward group too much .... for me at least, that's likely Brock.   This year and next off season, teams are going to find it awfully hard to make a hockey trade, but they have to keep hard at it and on the phones.    Second thing the more the merrier. 

 

Our teams current strength is down the middle.   We mess with that things could get ugly fast.   Help on D could take some time.. 

Edited by IBatch
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
IBatch Canucks Hall-of-Famer

IBatch

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, aGENT said:

Severson is a LONG way removed from Hamhuis. Defensively especially.

 

I'm not convinced he's our best option. Feels very half measure and band-aidy, also a couple years older than an ideal, long term Hughes partner IMO. And not going to be cheap as a UFA/extension either.

 

I'm hoping we focus on expiring RFAS's (like Hague this season for example), that teams might not be able to extend. Of course that requires cap space we currently don't have either. Haven't looked to see who will be next summer's "Hagues".

So then a trade with a team that still owns that players rights.    I get that UFAs cost money ... it's always a lot simpler if you are able to draft your own player(s) ... gets messy otherwise.   
 

Feel like we could be headed that way with trading some futures as try outs, the same way JB did with Vey and Bear, because, well we have no tweener RHD options as of now.    Best case,  Rathbone's game actually can translate into the NHL, and he becomes our Samuel Girard or Spurgeon type.   Yes he's a small body ...  Unlikely.   Realistically, we likely have to dip into the free agent well to acquire a top four D  and or a trade or both...And draft our way out of this slowly...the free agency of course would be fix while we wait, the trade could be just to make the cap space and to add picks to help for later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, IBatch said:

So then a trade with a team that still owns that players rights.    I get that UFAs cost money ... it's always a lot simpler if you are able to draft your own player(s) ... gets messy otherwise.   
 

Feel like we could be headed that way with trading some futures as try outs, the same way JB did with Vey and Bear, because, well we have no tweener RHD options as of now.    Best case,  Rathbone's game actually can translate into the NHL, and he becomes our Samuel Girard or Spurgeon type.   Yes he's a small body ...  Unlikely.   Realistically, we likely have to dip into the free agent well to acquire a top four D  and or a trade or both...And draft our way out of this slowly...the free agency of course would be fix while we wait, the trade could be just to make the cap space and to add picks to help for later. 

 

Yup and it's likely going to cost us one of Garland/Boeser + a Rathbone/Hoglander and likely a pick or B prospect.

 

As for the Manson mention above...little old to be a long term Hughes partner, but that's the type, certainly. We could use both a Tanev/Pesce/Marino type and a Manson/Cernak/Carlo type (or fluke in to a mid first "McAvoy") in a perfect world.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wallstreetamigo Canucks All-Star

wallstreetamigo

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, IBatch said:

Thing is, the better the team, the better the players are as a whole as well.   They push each other.    

 

We all were impressed with OEL when he came.   Some things even came as a surprise about his game, like the big Swedish chip he had on his shoulder.    Not expected but it exists (and not common ... Landeskog has this too), and not something we are used to either.   Edler hit but wasn't chippy.   

 

Point is, he settled Myers game down.   What would a pairing with Severson or someone else look like?   Poolman lol.  Not going to happen.   This teams needs another legit top four D.   Hamhuis Bieksa was our top pairing in 2011 too, not to be nit picky but you've got them inverted.   One year Bieksa actually tied for the league lead in even strength points for a d.    Wasn't used on the top PP unit, but that unit was used against the leagues best players.    Salo mr Glass, of course ended up in the top four when he was available too. 

 

That's the deepest D we've ever had.   And the best regular season team we've had as well.   Not many weaknesses, but if you re-call we lamented about not having a true number one, and a lack of wingers for Kesler.    Tried with Booth ... Ballard and Booth were the entire accumulation of cap savings, and both got bought out ... too bad (todays cap same as a 6 million dollar D or forward) which is truly too bad. 

 

I like this example, it explains two things.  One a team rarely if ever, doesn't lack something since the cap.    Our team will find it tricky to add a top for D without messing with our forward group too much .... for me at least, that's likely Brock.   This year and next off season, teams are going to find it awfully hard to make a hockey trade, but they have to keep hard at it and on the phones.    Second thing the more the merrier. 

 

Our teams current strength is down the middle.   We mess with that things could get ugly fast.   Help on D could take some time.. 

The best thing about that D was that there were two #1 quality pairings. There was no need for a workhorse #1 pairing that did everything. That was the point. The other point is that for the most part other guys could fit in for injury etc and the team not miss a step. That’s because we had all types of dmen unlike now where most bring a similar style and toolkit.
 

One more top 4 D for a winger should not impact the cap much if at all. That would significantly balance things. But it needs to be the right type of dman for that to work. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
IBatch Canucks Hall-of-Famer

IBatch

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The best thing about that D was that there were two #1 quality pairings. There was no need for a workhorse #1 pairing that did everything. That was the point. The other point is that for the most part other guys could fit in for injury etc and the team not miss a step. That’s because we had all types of dmen unlike now where most bring a similar style and toolkit.
 

One more top 4 D for a winger should not impact the cap much if at all. That would significantly balance things. But it needs to be the right type of dman for that to work. 

You bet.  And for the record i didn't lament we didn't have a "Norris" type then and not doing that now either.   It would be a good start (adding one more legit top four guy). 

 

Part of what I wrote was to remind folks of the cost as well.   7th D in Ballard sitting on the sidelines, all 6 plus cap hit in todays money was quite the luxury.   Why i'm not all that worried about adding say Severson to the mix either.  Or another Myers level contract.   How many goals are we going to lose, if we trade Brock really?   And what will be the net gain.... most players getting those minutes get at least 20 anyways ...

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spook007 Canucks Franchise Player

spook007

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, teepain said:

why didnt we just resign edler instead of poolman at the time?

 

edler OEL

hughes schenn

myers ______

 

was only 3.5 for a year too , didnt get that one

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but....

I don't think in reasent memory bar Eriksson, anyone has been so slaugtered by the fans. 
Almost no wanted Edler to stick around and least of all as 1st pairing D. 
 

Knowing know how it carried out keeping Edler would have been far better than Poolman

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, teepain said:

why didnt we just resign edler instead of poolman at the time?

 

edler OEL

hughes schenn

myers ______

 

was only 3.5 for a year too , didnt get that one

The end of that season SUCKED. I think Edler even stated he was "looking for change" (or something to that effect).

 

But yeah...

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...