Toggle sidebar

Grub's Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Roll with the Changes

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
racerjoe said:
Out of those coaches, you have green who is dog shit, Bruce, who is a great offensive coach, but that is really it, and Tocchett who has had one good season ever.

I actually do like Tocchett, but I don’t like a lot of his decisions this season, and has me questioning some of his abilities.
Click to expand...

When everywhere you go smells shit, it's time to check your shoes.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Quinning, racerjoe and WetcoastOrca
Vector said:


Canucks’ Involvement
  • Kotkaniemi was never discussed as part of the Rantanen trade but was brought up by the Canucks in trade talks
  • Canucks and Hurricanes got close on a deal in the past week
  • Can’t confirm whether that deal involved Miller or Pettersson
  • Had discussed both players with the Hurricanes over the past several weeks
  • Miller has not been asked to waive his NMC
  • Hurricanes tried to acquire Pettersson last season before he was signed to an extension
  • Had talks about Pettersson with other teams as recently as this past week
  • Could trade Miller, Pettersson, or both when all is said and done
Trading Partners
  • Canucks lost a trading partner in the Hurricanes
  • May open the door for the Rangers to take a “third crack” at Miller
  • Devils have “dabbled on Miller” but they don’t see how he fits cap and asset-wise; this could change closer to the trade deadline
  • Handful of other teams have talked to the Canucks about Miller
Click to expand...


From this, it sounds like the Canes wanted Pettersson first (out of Canuck options). Sounds like they were chasing him, not us shopping Pettersson.

Sounds like while both are options, the Canucks wanted still a huge package for Pettersson, and more than what was paid for Rantanaan.


Having said that, i think at this point it is a missed opportunity for them to not go for miller. I think they would be a better team with miller and still having Necas, or whatever they could get for him, then either Pettersson or Rantanaan instead of Necas. Not that they are not an improved team today, just they could have been even better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GranvilleIsland
Cogburn said:
Miller for Ratface and Kastelic

Pettersson and Boeser and whatever else is needed for Thompson and Tuch

Demko for Severson+

That + and a 2nd for K'Andre MIller

DeBrusk-Thompson-Garland
Marchand-Suter-Tuch
Joshua-Blueger-Sherwood
Heinen-Kastelic-Sasson/Hog/Lekk

Hughes-Hronek
Soucy-Severson
Miller-Myers

Lank/Silovs
Click to expand...
f*** no
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snatcher Demko
B71CB8B6-F13F-4AB1-B7BE-33701ECC2F40.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grip it N RYP it and Hansen
All LeBrun's report makes sense ... Canucks want a hefty package for Pettersson ... Miller isn't worth a whole heck of a lot. Maybe this causes some packages to start rolling in for Pettersson ... not sure how they trade Miller without getting absolutely fleeced at this point, probably better to wait until the TDL.
 
TruGr1t said:
All LeBrun's report makes sense ... Canucks want a hefty package for Pettersson ... Miller isn't worth a whole heck of a lot. Maybe this causes some packages to start rolling in for Pettersson ... not sure how they trade Miller without getting absolutely fleeced at this point, probably better to wait until the TDL.
Click to expand...

What I'm really having a hard time grasping is why people want to lose the Pettersson trade more than they want to lose the Miller trade. Regardless, you're losing correct? I'd rather lose on the guy whose wheels are much closer to falling right the f*** off.

Bgav said:
Going to take a miracle turning this franchise into a contender 😂😭
Click to expand...

Well my friend, we are back to square one. Said the same the day we hired this lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quinning, BoHorvat 53, bossram and 4 others
Reverend Mayhem said:
I might be misremembering.

More just recalling how you once said Gillis' fault was that he didn't go "all-in" enough. Which is I think what's happened in Colorado. Different situation with Landeskog, but I think they have to take a run at it now.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. They totally should have gone harder in both 2011 and 2012 and traded more future draft picks and more prospects, paid to get rid of Ballard to open up cap space for better additions, etc.

I think you meant Carter instead of Perry in 2012 which is what confused me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quinning, vancityluongo, timw33 and 4 others
Reverend Mayhem said:
What I'm really having a hard time grasping is why people want to lose the Pettersson trade more than they want to lose the Miller trade. Regardless, you're losing correct? I'd rather lose on the guy whose wheels are much closer to falling right the f*** off.
Click to expand...

This was discussed on Canucks Talk with Drance, I believe. The reasoning is you'll get more pieces to help you compete now by trading Pettersson, and you can always trade Miller later (for example, Canes were willing to include Necas for Pettersson ... not Miller). To be honest, the way these two guys are playing they aren't massive losses on a game-to-game basis at the moment (we're talking about 50-70 pt guys, not 80-100 pt guys on a PPG basis). There is a realm of possibility where the return on Pettersson actually improves you right now ... I don't think that's the case with Miller.

I'm sure there will be disagreement with that, but this was the thought experiment they ran through. To be fair, both hosts doubted you could pull this off since so many bridges have been burned with Miller.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reverend Mayhem and andora
wonton15 said:
Probably because Tulsky did it on purpose and played Allvin like a fiddle to up the leverage and urgency in the Colorado deal which was their real priority
Click to expand...
I think that's over thinking it. Teams can use a 3rd party to leverage a team/player, but in this case Rantanen for Necas/Drury is just a damn good fit for Carolina and was entirely dependant on the Avs deciding they didn't want to or couldn't extend Rantanen. We won't know the timing but if Rantanen didn't come available - which is almost overwhelmingly the case with a star player on a playoff team, Miller would be a good alternative.
 
TruGr1t said:
This was discussed on Canucks Talk with Drance, I believe. The reasoning is you'll get more pieces to help you compete now by trading Pettersson, and you can always trade Miller later (for example, Canes were willing to include Necas for Pettersson ... not Miller). To be honest, the way these two guys are playing they aren't massive losses on a game-to-game basis at the moment (we're talking about 50-70 pt guys, not 80-100 pt guys on a PPG basis). There is a realm of possibility where the return on Pettersson actually improves you right now ... I don't think that's the case with Miller.

I'm sure there will be disagreement with that, but this was the thought experiment they ran through. To be fair, both hosts doubted you could pull this off since so many bridges have been burned with Miller.
Click to expand...

I don’t know, judging solely on how the team played this season with out miller. S how they played this season without Pettersson… I think there is at least a good argument of improving more without miller
 
  • Like
Reactions: bossram
racerjoe said:
I don’t know, judging solely on how the team played this season with out miller. S how they played this season without Pettersson… I think there is at least a good argument of improving more without miller
Click to expand...

Well yes, but that's addition by subtraction, not on the basis on the return. If you just want to get rid of Miller you can trade him for feathers. I'm saying. Pettersson will actually return pieces that could potentially have more of an impact right now.
 
December5th said:
with returns like kotkaniemi or necas its already over man. we wont ever win with these guys as our core peices. trading miller and pettersson for the likes of those is a downgrade. this is so over, its so over for us..
Click to expand...
Necas is passing Pettersson and is a better player than Miller going forward also. We should be so lucky

Part of the issue here is our top gun forwards are not that great. Boeser Garland Debrusk are not 4 nations players. Boeser has the talent and shot for it but his foot speed is poor.

Miller is about to be 32 and probably should be transitioned to wing soon to squeeze the most out of him.
Pettersson who most thought was a top10 player after a career year has bounced back to and below his norms. Sure his tendinitis is somewhat the reason but he only has 1 season in 7 that suggests he's amongst the upper echelon and now he looks like a 1C that needs another topC to insulate him. For 11.6 that's not a favourable contract and he's frail and needs optimal work conditions.

But yes it's probably over which has been festering since Demko and his issues then the internal feuds. Obviously a way back is not in the cards and nobody is throwing life lines
 
The other thing, if the Canucks trade Pettersson I would bet Miller gets real happy right away, and backs off his trade request. That being said, in this scenario someone needs to sit Miller down immediately and say: "OK , look, we traded the other guy. You win. We are willing to keep you, but you need to STFU and let Hughes be captain, or you're next."
 
  • Like
Reactions: andora
TruGr1t said:
The other thing, if the Canucks trade Pettersson I would bet Miller gets real happy right away, and backs off his trade request.
Click to expand...
Agree in part

I wonder if the room is simply waiting on who to follow. I think either may get happier with the other moved - if that is valid what works better than. Add in the question if you believe or not pettersson can lead a team which does involve taking over games
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom