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

[-DLC-]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Again, care to point out where I said it would be "easy" or that other teams had it "easy". Deciding to sign/trade Miller wasn't "easy", and both routes are fraught with risks.

Well my point is more to take it out of the zoomed in lens you're using to project "our difficulties" down the road to remember that many teams will be in this position and that it's just part of this deal.  You take some risks. You do what's right in the here and now as well as the long term. Their landscape will also factor into ours down the road.

 

You're really putting out the idea that this is "difficult"...you may not have said other teams would have it easy but they also may find it difficult. 

 

Quote

tough decisions made to actually build what is currently a good team, in to a contender. And regardless of what you think of the JT extension, paying him $8m, long term, does make that process more difficult 

You don't believe they're a contender but that's your opinion. We'll find out soon enough but, until then, you can't claim this as fact. 

 

I think it's more difficult to "build a contender" if you take away the heart and soul leading us there because they're too expensive. They're too valuable NOT to retain as part of that process.

 

You don't build a contender down the road...you start building the foundation along the way. JT is a very important part of that. So to look down the road without also considering what this team would be without him is tunnel vision.

[Gurn]

1 minute ago, kilgore said:

Same diff 

Your basically telling him not to be himself

you can get mad at your wife- but I suggest you be careful how you express it.

So -not the same difference.

[AV.]

5 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

This is laughable trolling at its finest.

 

Try to keep it real. I'm glad you know more than the professional management team in place. Perhaps submit your resume? 

How so?  The contract is fair (in a vacuum), the player is good (for now), but it's perfectly fine to debate if it's the right type of move the Canucks should be making for where they're at in their cycle.  Many teams in NHL history have committed contracts to their main players turning/over 30 and have had it blow up in their face.  You don't need to "know more" than management to understand this trend and why it presents obvious risks.  Now, once more, we aren't a playoff team *with* Miller, and the areas in this team that need improving haven't been addressed, and it costs money/assets to do so - neither of which we have in any sort of abundance.  So, how exactly are we planning to improve and how are we going to do it with even less financial flexibility in the future?  So far, people just keep assuming that a potentially rising cap and some playoff pace from last season is what will get us to the next step.

[-DLC-]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

you can get mad at your wife- but I suggest you be careful how you express it.

So -not the same difference.

Uh, hockey's a little different setting than in the family living room. I don't think you'd spit on the floor either.

[-DLC-]

3 minutes ago, AV. said:

How so?  The contract is fair (in a vacuum), the player is good (for now), but it's perfectly fine to debate if it's the right type of move the Canucks should be making for where they're at in their cycle.  Many teams in NHL history have committed contracts to their main players turning/over 30 and have had it blow up in their face.  You don't need to "know more" than management to understand this trend and why it presents obvious risks.  Now, once more, we aren't a playoff team *with* Miller, and the areas in this team that need improving haven't been addressed, and it costs money/assets to do so - neither of which we have in any sort of abundance.  So, how exactly are we planning to improve and how are we going to do it with even less financial flexibility in the future?  So far, people just keep assuming that a potentially rising cap and some playoff pace from last season is what will get us to the next step.

I'm waiting for your list first. Not reading more of the same until you prove that you know better than the management group.

"We are not" are your opinions, not what we are. Because you say it's so ... doesn't make it so.

[grandmaster]

29 minutes ago, gurn said:

some that thought about it, said- too long a contract, and a bit too much money, but they have thought about it none the less.

Those that think that way don’t value the product. 

[Wanless]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

Interesting note- Miller is also a winger, and could have been traded to get a d man, or stock the cupboards. Iiic there were a bunch of people suggesting Miller as the likely to go guy?

Now it is likely going to be someone else as the team still has holes in it.

 

Exactly 

 

if BB is running Miller Petey and Horvat with their own lines this year that isnt stopping them from trading Boeser or Garland for a dman and using the freed up money from Pearson to sign a third line center or maybe even Klimovich gets a call up this year and shows he ready next year for thirdline center

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Wanless said:

Im not sure where you stand on the Miller signing but what this post is telling me that by signing Miller to this deal we no longer have the room to sign a high end player in free agency in the future

 

what im trying to wrap my head around is this

Are you suggesting that the team shouldnt have signed a high end player in Miller that we know plays well with the roster because it takes away the possibility of signing a high end player that we dont know what the chemistry will be like. Might i add that the signing we cant make anymore would have likely been a 28-30 year old player as well that we would be bidding against other teams for

 

Its very confusing

 

and there is nothing wrong with using the surplus of wingers to get a dman or to stock the cupboards a little

I'm suggesting that the other posters apparent sentiment that we could both retain everyone AND continue to improve/address our obvious roster/organizational holes, is not likely possible given the constraints of the salary cap.

 

My position on Miller has always been that we either sign him to a team friendly deal, or be forced to move him for the best return possible.

 

And FWIW, there's more ways of adding players than signing them as UFA's. We've seen numerous, valuable players moved for next to nothing (or indeed nothing) the past few seasons, simply by having cap space.

 

There is nothing wrong with moving wingers either for a dman or have the cap space to acquire one, nor did I suggest that. But again, then we're not keeping EVERYONE and addressing other roster/organizational deficiencies. 

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

Uh, hockey's a little different setting than in the family living room. I don't think you'd spit on the floor either.

Ok. hockey thing:

Bertuzzi got mad at Moore- should he have been more careful how he expressed his anger?

[-DLC-]

I'd love it if those selling this group as "not" a playoff team, "contender" or whatever could lend me their crystal balls.

 

 

[-DLC-]

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

Ok. hockey thing:

Bertuzzi got mad at Moore- should he have been more careful how he expressed his anger?

Nice diversion. So do you spit on the floor at home?

 

Hockey's not the same as a household.  Let's straighten that part out first before we move past it.

[alt kilgore]

5 minutes ago, gurn said:

you can get mad at your wife- but I suggest you be careful how you express it.

So -not the same difference.

Well, see I don’t think his anger/ passion is meant for his teammates (or wife) .  Based on what I’ve seen off the ice, that frustration is either self-directed or at most towards the whole team in general including him. 
Thats how I  read it, and I’m just gobsmacked that others see it as a negative

[Gurn]

8 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

Those that think that way don’t value the product. 

Those that think that, think differently than you. Why should you feel you get to judge how they value the product?

Interestingly- most people that think differently than 'the world is sunshine and lollipops"; don't try to tell others to think like they do;

they say their piece and allow for the fact that others think differently.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by gurn

[nuckin_futz]

Too many people look at the cumulative result of last year and say we aren't a playoff team. We basically had 2 seasons last year. The first under Green was a disaster. After Bruce came in we played .650 hockey the rest of the way. That gets you in the playoffs every year.

 

There's no reason to suggest Bruce can't keep that going with this same group and of course Miller is a huge part of that group. Is the defence good enough to win a cup?, nope, but it's good enough to get you into the playoffs and take it from there.

 

Seeing that Miller could have got quite a bit more in free agency I don't see what there is to gripe about but as always people find something to gripe about. Says more about them than the team.

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

Nice diversion. So do you spit on the floor at home?

 

Hockey's not the same as a household.  Let's straighten that part out first before we move past it.

Everything, other than hockey, is different than hockey.

Now do you think Bertuzzi could have found better ways to express his anger?

[Jester13]

1 hour ago, -DLC- said:

The fact that some here somehow connect the dots between JT's frustration and that somehow affecting his teammates directly is really a reach.

 

I'm sure they understand that his stick slamming (even IF after they've missed a pass to/from him) isn't personal and is just part of his intense desire for them ALL, as a team, to win. Together. 

 

It's truly sad to me that some still look for stuff that's clearly not there. This team is all on the same page and there's a reason JT wants to stay....there is huge potential for this group to do good things together. He's part of that, not a threat to it.

Boudreau recently mentioned that JTs past antics did rub some teammates the wrong way, but he also mentioned how he's okay with the fire.

 

What I think happened last year is this: Green's team underperformed; JT was pissed at losing and seeing some of his teammates mail it in; JT showed his emotions; some players took offence to his fire and it rubbed them the wrong way; the tough times under Green festered and division started to rear it's ugly head; we heard rumblings about the growing division and unhappy players; Green fired and Boudreau hired; Bruce, doing what Bruce does, talks to his new players, sees the angst and team dynamic issues from the past coach, smoothes things over; team starts winning; team starts having fun again and enjoying coming to the rink; JT learns how to lead in a better way; guys upset start to learn how to understand and accept JTs leadership style; division goes away and the team culture is fixed; JT signs a team friendly deal; Bo will soon as well; we win the cup. 

[grumpyone]

[-DLC-]

Anyhow, I'm still too happy over this to let the naysayers and gloom and doomers grind me down.

 

Those predicting the bleakness probably miss the point of the here and now as the season nears. Worrying about 5 years down the road is maybe sucking the joy out of the current anticipation of that.

 

Hockey's nearing folks. Whether you love this team or hate it, that's reason enough to be excited and positive. 

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

Everything, other than hockey, is different than hockey.

Now do you think Bertuzzi could have found better ways to express his anger?

No, no...you answer first.

 

Do you spit on the floor at home? Then we can move beyond that. Because we have to establish that how you treat your wife should likely be a bit different than how you treat guys on the ice during high level hockey games. Physicality is part of hockey. You also shouldn't check your wife into the boards/wall either. 

 

 

[The Lock]

Just now, aGENT said:

Who says they have to be lesser players? Are they still lesser players in 4+ years when father time shows up? If one of those players was a much needed RHD, is the overall team better, even if we're lesser at F without JT? Are we better having had to move one of the younger Boeser/Garland instead? Do they offer up as good of a return?

 

This is not as black and white as you'd seem to like it to be.

While they don't have to be lesser players, they're certainly most likely to be lesser players.

 

Think of it this way: when was the last time we had a player score like Miller has for us? It would be the Sedins right? When was the last time they made such a feat? 2010-11. After that, they were a PPG and started losing steam. So we've had an 11 year gap between having players score even close to 100 points. And sure, we were building, but even then, most players that score that number of points are drafted by the team they are on.

 

So then you think maybe we can get an equal to Miller. Let's see if we can: Here's the situation with almost every player last season who was above a PPG and played most or all of the season (I only say almost because I'm going down the list of total points produced last season):

 

McDavid, never traded

Huberdeau, traded for another 100 point producer

Gaudreau, signed for almost 10mil per season with competition from other teams to sign him

Draisaitl, never traded

Kaprizov, never traded

Matthews, never traded

Stamkos, never traded

Tkachuk, traded for another 100 point producer

Marner, never traded

Panarin, signed for over 11.5mil caphit

Josi, never traded (my god this shows how good this guy is but that's another story

Conner, never traded

Rantanen, never traded

Patrick Kane, never traded

Ovechkin, never traded

MacKinnon, never traded

Barkov, never traded

 

So we have to wait until a player's scord less than 88 points to even see any players we could get to replace Miller for an alright amount of money (also, here on out ignoring the other players never traded, but there's still a lot below this line):

 

Kadri, signed for 7mil... finally the 1st player signed for under Miller's contract.... would you really consider him to be our saviour?

Duchene, signed for 8mil, perhaps the closest comparable somehow? (laughable at best)

Fiala, trade for a player and a 1st round pick, good player but he's no Miller

Foresberg, signed for 8.5mil for 8years.... less bang for your buck than Miller but perhaps the best alternative so far

 

Many of the ones after this have also been never traded (Crosby, Guentzel, Tarasenko, etc)

 

So, honestly, look at the stats before you respond would be my request. You ask who says they have to be lesser players than Miller? My response is by far the most likely scenario is that they would be lesser players than Miller. Any player as valuable as Miller right now either hasn't be traded, has signed for more than Miller, or was traded for another player like Miller. There are NO examples that currently indicate we'd get an equal to Miller, only lesser players.

 

 

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

Too many people look at the cumulative result of last year and say we aren't a playoff team. We basically had 2 seasons last year. The first under Green was a disaster. After Bruce came in we played .650 hockey the rest of the way. That gets you in the playoffs every year.

 

There's no reason to suggest Bruce can't keep that going with this same group and of course Miller is a huge part of that group. Is the defence good enough to win a cup?, nope, but it's good enough to get you into the playoffs and take it from there.

 

Seeing that Miller could have got quite a bit more in free agency I don't see what there is to gripe about but as always people find something to gripe about. Says more about them than the team.

Strangely you now seem to be griping about what you perceive as other people's griping, or maybe my perception, in this case is wrong?