Toggle sidebar

Grub's Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Rumours

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
JT Milker said:
Miller is going to go to NJ, stop playing like a little bitch, and win the cup.
Click to expand...

I've been saying for as long as the Petey and Miller rumors have been around - it's hard to see us winning a trade on either, and I absolutely foresee an Eichel situation where they go on to win the Cup, because they will be the best player in whatever trade occurs.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: supercanuck, xtr3m and SeawaterOnIce
timw33 said:
Mercer and Palat for Miller + 2MM player (Heinen/Desharnais) is dead even money-wise. Maybe you can retain Palat to 4MM x 2 and flip for a pick at the deadline too if you dont think he fits into the plans.

Problem with Mercer is really just that he does not project as a C long term.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that Palat would be using that NMC that he has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dez and Vector
Mr. Canucklehead said:
I've been saying for as long as the Petey and Miller rumors have been around - it's hard to see us winning a trade on either, and I absolutely foresee an Eichel situation where they go on to win the Cup, because they will be the best player in whatever trade occurs.
Click to expand...

Management tried to get a head start on trading Miller back in 2022. There was so much smoke around management trying to trade him and makes you wonder what could have been had they pulled the trigger sooner.
 

Bleach Clean said:
We are not talking rebuild. It was between a quick re-tool (2 years) or a slower re-tool (more than 2 years). They weren't going to do a full rebuild with Pettersson and Hughes here.
Click to expand...
This is sort of just semantics. Whether you call it a longer retool or rebuild, I don't think ownership was going to sign off on any plan that did not have an intended goal of being completive within a couple of years. To put it another way, I don't think a "slower retool" of 3-4 years was ever something ownership was willing to do. How soon we forget Trevor Linden as President who wasn't even willing to say the word "rebuild" during a period of time that it made way more sense for ownership to rebuild. And when Alvinn was hired, and ignoring the bubble playoffs which were kind of a joke and which the Canucks probably wouldn't have made if the season wasn't shut down, the Canucks had missed the playoffs six straight years so I highly doubt that ownership was going to green light any plan where they may miss another three to four years. Especially when the Canucks had a young core with Hughes, Pettersson, Boeser, Miller and Demko.

Bleach Clean said:
The pros and cons are judged against a common standard: Becoming a Contender. Re-tool or rebuild, it doesn't matter, the goal doesn't change.
Click to expand...
No, the goal doesn't change, but the chances of success change and so the harshness of our criticism does change. Its like if someone tries to run 100Kms and fails to make it the whole distance vs. someone who tries to run 5kms and fails to make it the whole distance. The former is goal is far more difficult than the latter so we aren't going to judge both failures in the same manner.

Bleach Clean said:
In other words, the standard was never Aquilini's bid for gate revenue at all costs. If JR/Allvin took the job under that premise, then they agree with it and have shown competence in executing it. But even then, their internal standard (if it even exists right now) has no bearing on how they will be judged externally, by media/fans. Nor should it.
Click to expand...
The external standard is trying to become a contender. I think we probably both agree on this. But Allvin actually has already accomplished that, but obviously for only one year. And I think we both agree that the period of time for which a team is a contender is also relevant in judging a management team. My point is that Allvin has actually executed quite well on a path that he was likely forced to take by ownership (i.e., compete now), and that when you judge him in the context of executing a compete now type plan, he's done quite well. Certainly he won't get perfect marks, but he's done quite well. And of course we don't know what the next few years will bring. Obviously things are looking dire now, but we are also one point out of a playoff spot, and it certainly wouldn't surprise anyone if we look back in four years and the Canucks had made the playoffs 3-4 times over the past five years.
 
pitseleh said:
I think Miller is almost certainly dealing with some sort of physical issue that is limiting his effectiveness. His frustration about not being able to do what he normally does may be bleeding into the rest of his play but I have a hard time believing the issue is just behind the scenes issues. You can tell even when he’s trying to make things happen he can’t dominate the way he used to.

Assuming so, the question has to be whether this is something he can get over or if it’s a long-term problem or from age-related decline.
Click to expand...
probably, that's why we should not advocate for trading away Miller and Petey. Injuries happen and it shouldn't be shocking to people that it can affect performance.
 
On twitter, I proposed something like Miller & Hirose for Mercer, Tatar, and Bastian. I haven't thought about this deeper than it works from a cap perspective.
 
Vector said:
On twitter, I proposed something like Miller & Hirose for Mercer, Tatar, and Bastian. I haven't thought about this deeper than it works from a cap perspective.
Click to expand...

We come out of that one pretty well cap wise long term and it's effectively Miller for Mercer 1:1 which isn't a great return IMO. In terms or derisking on Miller's mid 30's years and removing the player who is likely causing a lot of issues, it's...probably a net neutral to slight win kind of deal?

It's so hard to gauge the market for Miller with how he is currently playing and how much weight will be given to him playing to his potential under new circumstances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bgav and Vector
timw33 said:
We come out of that one pretty well cap wise long term and it's effectively Miller for Mercer 1:1 which isn't a great return IMO. In terms or derisking on Miller's mid 30's years and removing the player who is likely causing a lot of issues, it's...probably a net neutral to slight win kind of deal?

It's so hard to gauge the market for Miller with how he is currently playing and how much weight will be given to him playing to his potential under new circumstances.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. I have no real idea how to figure out what Miller will return given the only comparison is Hertl. I'd hedge on being disappointed with the overall return but happy with the additional benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hodgy, Mr. Canucklehead, kanucks25 and 1 other person
timw33 said:
This is a REALLY good team to do a deal with. They have tons of great assets young and NHL roster age right now.

Obviously would lose my **** getting a Simon Nemec type, but we would be eating Palat's contract in that situation.

Wonder if a 1:1 Hamilton for Miller, with retention on Hamilton to make it an 8MM for 8MM swap would make some sense here. Open up their blueline for their many, many young D, get an...emotional veteran player rocket fuel for their forward group.
Click to expand...
Correctly identified NJ as a great team for a Miller deal, and then suggest dougie Hamilton straight up as a return!?!?
Lol
 
seems like miller can rehab his reputation in the 4 nations cup

seems like teams will pay more after that tournament is over and players return uninjured.

seems like the canucks should wait until after the 4 nations cup to make a move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B-rock
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom