Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Rumour] Time's up! Finish your last sentence...


AngryElf

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, AngryElf said:

The tweet that said it was two firsts has since been deleted, and like I said earlier, the keyword over the past few days was they wanted to SECURE a center before dealing JT. The key to this deadline so far has been moving towards young, fast and good on the boards and so I presume we were going to deal a boeser/garland for Kotkaniemi and make this deal in conjunction. No point dealing a really damn good player after telling your key guys you believe in them with the Honk trade. It reeks of having no plan, and pisses everyone off. 

Ugh this is just so dumb. The best that this does for us is decrease our draft standings this season and back us up further against the cap, decreasing our leverage in the off-season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harold Drunken said:

 

Thing is, Miller is a better winger than centre anyway...and getting his cap hit off the books allows the team flexibility to go out and get a real centre in the off season or other that's not locked into a huge contract until he's 37.

All true. But I don't think the offer was two firsts. if it was then we would take that and use the picks to trade for a younger center. That's what we just did to get Hronek. We turned Bo into Hronek via the draft capital returned. So why wouldn't we do the same with two firsts for Miller? And those firsts would have a lot of value considering the Penguins aging roster and potential to fall back. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They traded freshly acquired draft picks for a d-man this week. The fact that they would draw an arbitrary line here and not make this deal is absolutely bizarre and reeks of Aquilini doing the exact same shit that he’s been doing for a decade. Not trading Miller and getting out from that contract is going to be the biggest mistake this franchise has ever made.

  • There it is 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KoreanHockeyFan said:

Apparently Friedman shot down that report of the Canucks rejecting a supposed offer of multiple picks?

 

Didn't Servavelli report this morning that the ask was two 1st rounders anyways? 

 

Something's not adding up.

I'd like to see those two thrown into a cage match and forced to take a punch every time one of their rumors is proven to be inaccurate. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kodos said:

They traded freshly acquired draft picks for a d-man this week. The fact that they would draw an arbitrary line here and not make this deal is absolutely bizarre and reeks of Aquilini doing the exact same shit that he’s been doing for a decade. Not trading Miller and getting out from that contract is going to be the biggest mistake this franchise has ever made.

If the Canucks could have traded him but didn't, this management is totally lost.

  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, fanofvan said:

Can't blame the Canucks for asking for a centre back as without Miller their depth would be Pettersson - Dries - Raty - Aman...and thats pretty scary.

It would but I wonder, 

1) risky assumption, but our C depth looks much less scary if we draft CB, AF, or Benson this year 

 

Or much more probable

 

2) after all this insanity deadline spending, lot of teams gonna be super pressed against the cap and forced to move good pieces for lower value and we could aim to re coup a center that way.

 

Either way I'm not upset at keeping Miller, but passing on 2x 1st round picks if true... oof that's tough.

  • Tanks a lot 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alflives said:

All true. But I don't think the offer was two firsts. if it was then we would take that and use the picks to trade for a younger center. That's what we just did to get Hronek. We turned Bo into Hronek via the draft capital returned. So why wouldn't we do the same with two firsts for Miller? And those firsts would have a lot of value considering the Penguins aging roster and potential to fall back. 

Yeah I don't actually know what the supposed package was so tough to say do it or don't do it too so that's a good point. The Penguins don't have a young center to offer anyway.

 

Like you said, we could potentially turn the picks from a Miller trade into a young center if needed or use the cap room we gain by him leaving to target a center in the off season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KirkSave said:

I understand the nucks need to move out cap but Miller is worth his cap hit whereas OEL, Boeser and Myers ain't. OEL is basically immovable. Boeser has some appeal and is still young. Myers will be dealt in the summer. He is a large RD on an expiring contract and is effective, albeit unpredictable at times.

You are the Master of the Understatement.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harold Drunken said:

It's crazy to me that Edmonton is comfortable with that goalie situation headed into the playoffs. They may not really have a choice, but still....can't see them making a run unless they can score 5 a game in the playoffs. 

Worst thing to happen to Edmonton was make the conference finals. It gives the illusion they are only a few pieces away from the Cup. The reality is conference finals I think is the best case scenario for them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KoreanHockeyFan said:

Apparently Friedman shot down that report of the Canucks rejecting a supposed offer of multiple picks?

 

Didn't Servavelli report this morning that the ask was two 1st rounders anyways? 

 

Something's not adding up.

Calculate Figure It Out GIF by Swing Left

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RWJC said:

I do understand the difference. In this case, there isn’t one.

His opinion has merit whether you think it’s the case or not. Linden fiasco was one of the more public examples of it.

There is speculation from everyone who’s ever covered this club, so in part it may be an active influence that is relevant to discussion with folks like yourself pro-going full rebuild now. That period of time Linden was encouraging exactly what you might be a proponent of. What Alf discusses is still a valid possibility, as evidenced by what we’re witnessing happening with this club at the moment. I want to hear what he has to say.  That sound fair to you?

 

I spent 17+ years in the ring. I don’t enjoy fighting anymore so no, I’m not going all psycho to drag you out into the street. But I will protect the “characters” here who’s input I enjoy and will stand up for that especially if you’re going to try to invalidate them.
 

 

Mighty noble of you to stand up for Alf, I can respect that.  Like I've said in previous posts, Rutherford had absolutely no need to take this job; he has won championships, he has built teams, and he's fairly advanced in age.  He said during his introductory press conference that he would not have taken the position if he wasn't given full autonomy over all personnel decisions and I believe him when he said that. 

 

I'm absolutely fine with a full rebuild as much as I'm fine with the new regime being given a chance to execute their plan.  It may be similar to Benning's plan but, to me, it looks like they are being smarter about it. 

  • Cheers 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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