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

[Canucks Curse]

4 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said:

Not sure you are watching the same Hughes I have been the last month; he is nowhere near where he was at last year. The best output from our PP last night is when him and Petersson did the old flipperoo; Pettersson point shots get through. In addition, his spin outs and avoiding is not working at this time; results in multi horenndous giveaways a period. His only plus right now is some of his breakout passes are still clicking...but not all.

 

I still like QH, and want him here LT, but to throw a bunch of other guys under the bus without acknowledging his poor play is ridiculous.

ok you are right, he is stillPPG though but yes defence wise and shot from point wise a step back, many ppl saying he is playing through injury...

[BC_Hawk]

4 minutes ago, Canucks Curse said:

ok you are right, he is stillPPG though but yes defence wise and shot from point wise a step back, many ppl saying he is playing through injury...

That I agree with. QH is not Makar; he can't absorb 25+ tough minutes a night. What PA and JR expected him to do in the first 10 games was stupid; they killed him and OEL in the process. 

 

Not that he is the first pairing saviour at RHD we need, but why PA couldn't get Bear in September boggles my mind. He was WAY less risk than trash like Dermot and Stillman...who are now going to cost us money to sit in Abby.

[aGENT]

17 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said:

That I agree with. QH is not Makar; he can't absorb 25+ tough minutes a night. What PA and JR expected him to do in the first 10 games was stupid; they killed him and OEL in the process. 

 

Not that he is the first pairing saviour at RHD we need, but why PA couldn't get Bear in September boggles my mind. He was WAY less risk than trash like Dermot and Stillman...who are now going to cost us money to sit in Abby.

I think Hughes could with the right partner. Give him a "Toews" to play with (or a Cernak or a Slavin.. Heck even a Pesce etc), and he could IMO.

 

People forget far too often that this is a team sport. Partners/line mates, complementary skill sets and chemistry matter. A LOT.

[Coconuts]

19 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said:

That I agree with. QH is not Makar; he can't absorb 25+ tough minutes a night. What PA and JR expected him to do in the first 10 games was stupid; they killed him and OEL in the process. 

 

Not that he is the first pairing saviour at RHD we need, but why PA couldn't get Bear in September boggles my mind. He was WAY less risk than trash like Dermot and Stillman...who are now going to cost us money to sit in Abby.

Dude, Dermott has played a total of 17 games as a Canuck and that was after joining a brand new team halfway through the season. It's a bit early to be calling him trash. I don't think he's top 4 material but it's a bit early to say what he is considering we haven't had much to gauge him off. 

[rekker]

34 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Dude, Dermott has played a total of 17 games as a Canuck and that was after joining a brand new team halfway through the season. It's a bit early to be calling him trash. I don't think he's top 4 material but it's a bit early to say what he is considering we haven't had much to gauge him off. 

Totally agree. Dermott actually seemed to fit the 5-6 role just fine. Even has a little edge to him. 

[Coconuts]

8 minutes ago, rekker said:

Totally agree. Dermott actually seemed to fit the 5-6 role just fine. Even has a little edge to him. 

If Dermott can simply be a reliable bottom pairing guy that's perfectly acceptable. Those guys have value too, and I mean we've already paid for him so we may as well wait and see what we've got. As a pending RFA who's yet to play this season it's not as if he's going to cost much. 

[rekker]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

If Dermott can simply be a reliable bottom pairing guy that's perfectly acceptable. Those guys have value too, and I mean we've already paid for him so we may as well wait and see what we've got. As a pending RFA who's yet to play this season it's not as if he's going to cost much. 

Yip. And they especially have value to teams like the Canucks, that are brutal at drafting and developing their own D.

[Canucks Curse]

dermott+ bear could be a decent third pair

[Coconuts]

7 minutes ago, rekker said:

Yip. And they especially have value to teams like the Canucks, that are brutal at drafting and developing their own D.

It'll be interesting to see how that bottom pairing shakes out. Bear and Dermott are both pending RFA's, Rathbone's got one more year til he's an RFA again. Stillman's also got another season on his deal. Between your bottom pairing that's four guys, though maybe Bear works as a top 4 stopgap. I'm not convinced he's top 4 material but he's settled in alright. 

 

Schenn and Burroughs are both pending UFA's, one or both could be gone. There's also a bit of a wildcard in Johansson, who's probably the one RD prospect who may be close. Hard to say what Woo, he's the same age as Johansson but his AHL time has been a mixed bag. 

 

Lot of pending RFA depth guys in Brisebois, Juulsen, Keeper, Wolanin, and Kaylnuk too. Lot of bottom pairing or depth guys, not a whole lot of top 4 material. Even Schenn probably plays lower on a D that's better constructed, which isn't to diminish his contributions. 

[N4ZZY]

6 hours ago, Shayster007 said:

Because this team will likely be terrible, even worse then it is now. Why keep Miller? What does that achieve. Reset the culture entirely and let Petey take over. We never should have signed Miller.

I agree that we should never have resigned Miller. If he's traded, then that's admission on this management team that they made a mistake. Good on them if they did that. At least own up to your mistakes, and not double down because of your pride and ego. 

 

Bo should have been signed FIRST. and now, we're likely to lose him either A. for nothing, or B. for something much less desirable. I don't trust this management team. 

 

I do like Bear, though. He's been good for us. But not sure if we can keep him on the team at a cost-controlled cost either. 

 

 

[MeanSeanBean]

13 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

I agree that we should never have resigned Miller. If he's traded, then that's admission on this management team that they made a mistake. Good on them if they did that. At least own up to your mistakes, and not double down because of your pride and ego. 

 

Bo should have been signed FIRST. and now, we're likely to lose him either A. for nothing, or B. for something much less desirable. I don't trust this management team. 

 

I do like Bear, though. He's been good for us. But not sure if we can keep him on the team at a cost-controlled cost either. 

 

 

I have seen that idea floated around here, but I actually don't think I agree with it. Trading JT now doesn't necessarily equate to admission of wrong doing. Management was straight with us and said they didn't like the return they were getting for him. I think it's fair that his value would have been higher last year, then this year at the deadline without a contract. 2 year rental vs 1 year.

 

So if management didn't like the return, giving him a contract was the right move. They could have played hard ball and hoped for a haul as a 1 year rental at the deadline, but that also came with risk that if they were in a playoff spot he could walk for free.

 

Now we would have to take salary back if we want to trade JT, but I'm not sure that means his value has gone down. Maybe it's just... Different? 

 

We are asset poor, we need to maximize everything. Maybe signing Miller and trading him this year (I don't think that's going to happen but one can dream) is the best way to maximize that value.

[JeremyCuddles]

I traded Miller in NHL 23, there was no negative morale for trading a guy we just signed. Therefore I think we should move him for the same haul I got. 1st overall pick. Come on guys. It's so easy.

[BC_Hawk]

3 hours ago, Coconuts said:

Dude, Dermott has played a total of 17 games as a Canuck and that was after joining a brand new team halfway through the season. It's a bit early to be calling him trash. I don't think he's top 4 material but it's a bit early to say what he is considering we haven't had much to gauge him off. 

The problem is we have lots of 5/6/7 guys; we lack top 4s. Wasting money on bottom pairing guys doesn't fix any of our problems, it just erodes cap one small bit at a time.

 

Why Burroughs hasn't found a regular spot on the 3rd pairing is baffling. He has easily outplayed Dermott, Stillman, and Poolman. In addition, he is even better than Myers in the bottom pair bc he plays that role better...dude.

[BC_Hawk]

1 hour ago, Shayster007 said:

I have seen that idea floated around here, but I actually don't think I agree with it. Trading JT now doesn't necessarily equate to admission of wrong doing. Management was straight with us and said they didn't like the return they were getting for him. I think it's fair that his value would have been higher last year, then this year at the deadline without a contract. 2 year rental vs 1 year.

 

So if management didn't like the return, giving him a contract was the right move. They could have played hard ball and hoped for a haul as a 1 year rental at the deadline, but that also came with risk that if they were in a playoff spot he could walk for free.

 

Now we would have to take salary back if we want to trade JT, but I'm not sure that means his value has gone down. Maybe it's just... Different? 

 

We are asset poor, we need to maximize everything. Maybe signing Miller and trading him this year (I don't think that's going to happen but one can dream) is the best way to maximize that value.

If we have to take salary back on a JT trade, that is failure, as we just resigned him. In addition, it goes against their other cornerstone comment of creating cap room. 

 

JT is a MASSIVE complimentary piece to a team with Stanley cup aspirations. His value would have been maxed as a rental in my opinion. A team like LV or TB would have salivated at getting a guy of his skill at TDL to complement their top 9 using their LTIR. His new contract negates them even picking up the phone.

[MeanSeanBean]

10 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said:

If we have to take salary back on a JT trade, that is failure, as we just resigned him. In addition, it goes against their other cornerstone comment of creating cap room. 

 

JT is a MASSIVE complimentary piece to a team with Stanley cup aspirations. His value would have been maxed as a rental in my opinion. A team like LV or TB would have salivated at getting a guy of his skill at TDL to complement their top 9 using their LTIR. His new contract negates them even picking up the phone.

It closed one door and opened another. Management was in those phone calls and I just hope they have a finger on the pulse better then us. It's possible another door would have opened this trade deadline, but that would have also come with a lot of risk that one didn't.

 

I don't think taking on money is a massi r faliure if it's the right money. A shorter term contract, or a player that fills a need that we want anyways. Can still mine value.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Shayster007

[saucypass]

1 hour ago, N7Nucks said:

I traded Miller in NHL 23, there was no negative morale for trading a guy we just signed. Therefore I think we should move him for the same haul I got. 1st overall pick. Come on guys. It's so easy.

What are we even waiting for

[Coconuts]

29 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said:

The problem is we have lots of 5/6/7 guys; we lack top 4s. Wasting money on bottom pairing guys doesn't fix any of our problems, it just erodes cap one small bit at a time.

 

Why Burroughs hasn't found a regular spot on the 3rd pairing is baffling. He has easily outplayed Dermott, Stillman, and Poolman. In addition, he is even better than Myers in the bottom pair bc he plays that role better...dude.

Sure we do, some of them are pending UFA's or RFA's. Dermott and Bear being RFA's with Schenn and Burroughs being UFA's. Considering they paid to acquire both Dermott and Bear I'm assuming they're safe, Burroughs may not be and it's hard to say what'll happen with Schenn. They've also got Rathbone for another year but he'll be waivers eligible next season if I remember correctly. Maybe not. I touched on this above. 

 

Burroughs does fine in his role and a lot of folks seem to like him but Boudreau sees him as a 7D who slots in sometimes. You don't have to agree but you don't make the coaching decisions either. 

 

 

 

[R3aL]

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Sure we do, some of them are pending UFA's or RFA's. Dermott and Bear being RFA's with Schenn and Burroughs being UFA's. Considering they paid to acquire both Dermott and Bear I'm assuming they're safe, Burroughs may not be and it's hard to say what'll happen with Schenn. They've also got Rathbone for another year but he'll be waivers eligible next season if I remember correctly. Maybe not. I touched on this above. 

 

Burroughs does fine in his role and a lot of folks seem to like him but Boudreau sees him as a 7D who slots in sometimes. You don't have to agree but you don't make the coaching decisions either. 

 

 

 

The only reason I can think he’s not starting him regularly is the way he plays is not sustainable for him to do regularly night i. Night out and he and the coaching staff are all aware of that and he’s working towards it.

kinda dumb otherwise to just label him as something and not give him opportunity if he’s playing above what he’s been labelled and outperforms those with bottom pairing or top 4 pairing labels

[rekker]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

It'll be interesting to see how that bottom pairing shakes out. Bear and Dermott are both pending RFA's, Rathbone's got one more year til he's an RFA again. Stillman's also got another season on his deal. Between your bottom pairing that's four guys, though maybe Bear works as a top 4 stopgap. I'm not convinced he's top 4 material but he's settled in alright. 

 

Schenn and Burroughs are both pending UFA's, one or both could be gone. There's also a bit of a wildcard in Johansson, who's probably the one RD prospect who may be close. Hard to say what Woo, he's the same age as Johansson but his AHL time has been a mixed bag. 

 

Lot of pending RFA depth guys in Brisebois, Juulsen, Keeper, Wolanin, and Kaylnuk too. Lot of bottom pairing or depth guys, not a whole lot of top 4 material. Even Schenn probably plays lower on a D that's better constructed, which isn't to diminish his contributions. 

For me, it's not popular around here, but I'm just not a Rathbone fan. If the D gets reworked and the bottom pairing is Dermott and Bear? I'm happy. Myers has to be the odd man out to rework the top four. I agree Bear could maybe be second pairing which would be even better because a Dermott and Burroughs bottom pairing would be sweet. Maybe Bear and OEL as second pairing Hughes and someone other than Myers as his partner via trade, UFA. Keep Schenn, he's a beast. He and Burr can rotate through the linep as needed. Myers has to go, has to, imho.

[Coconuts]

5 minutes ago, R3aL said:

The only reason I can think he’s not starting him regularly is the way he plays is not sustainable for him to do regularly night i. Night out and he and the coaching staff are all aware of that and he’s working towards it.

kinda dumb otherwise to just label him as something and not give him opportunity if he’s playing above what he’s been labelled and outperforms those with bottom pairing or top 4 pairing labels

Burroughs is an underdog, he's a probably a 5 guy at best. It's easy to root for an underdog, or to get attached to one. But at the end of the day he's a depth guy and depth D aren't hard to come by. 

 

I'm pretty sure the coaching staff know what they've got on D.