CanucksCorner.com Forums

Hockey Widow wrote:Ya I imagine Miller will want two years as well. And I honestly don't think Benning would balk at that. They really don't see Markstrom as a better option than Miller. It will all be up to Miller. I can't see them signing a deal before the expansion draft but I can see them feeling each other out.

Miller will want to stay as close as he can to LA. Anaheim is the team to watch come July first. Barring a Cup win by them and with their need to win now and the fact they wanted Miller before but were not willing to offer term and salary as were the Canucks, I can see Miller waiting to test free agency again. Anaheim just might be in a position to bite and offer two years at four per and if they do Miller will take it. It was what they offered before but he obviously went for 3x6. Now, it may seem more attractive to him.

I also don't rule out Vegas. If Miller parks his Cup dream.

Vegas will probably be a better looking team than Vancouver next year in terms of chasing a Cup. If Miller stays in Vancity he's parking his Cup dream.....so why not head to LV an be a 5 hour drive, or 30 minute plane ride, rather than 20 hour drive and 3 hour flight.....plus dodging customs etc.

If Vegas is an option for the same money, why would Miller stay in Vancouver? The fans?

Mëds wrote:

Hockey Widow wrote:Ya I imagine Miller will want two years as well. And I honestly don't think Benning would balk at that. They really don't see Markstrom as a better option than Miller. It will all be up to Miller. I can't see them signing a deal before the expansion draft but I can see them feeling each other out.

Miller will want to stay as close as he can to LA. Anaheim is the team to watch come July first. Barring a Cup win by them and with their need to win now and the fact they wanted Miller before but were not willing to offer term and salary as were the Canucks, I can see Miller waiting to test free agency again. Anaheim just might be in a position to bite and offer two years at four per and if they do Miller will take it. It was what they offered before but he obviously went for 3x6. Now, it may seem more attractive to him.

I also don't rule out Vegas. If Miller parks his Cup dream.

Vegas will probably be a better looking team than Vancouver next year in terms of chasing a Cup. If Miller stays in Vancity he's parking his Cup dream.....so why not head to LV an be a 5 hour drive, or 30 minute plane ride, rather than 20 hour drive and 3 hour flight.....plus dodging customs etc.

If Vegas is an option for the same money, why would Miller stay in Vancouver? The fans?

Canadian Taxes, as opposed to Nevada's ?

We can want Millet all we want, it's up to him. I'm sure LV is thinking long term, not sure Miller appeals to them. Detroits goaltending is way less than adequate. Miller was born and raised in Michigan. Millers bro plays there, his Parents are there. I could see him ending his career there

I say adios burrows and hansen, team with them is still a bottom feeder, time for their skill sets to be utilized by a NYR, Habs, Pens, Caps or Ducks squad for example.

Be nice to get a pick for Millsy as well.

That'll make up for all the years of buying since 1970 at the trade deadline.

SKYO wrote:I say adios burrows and hansen, team with them is still a bottom feeder, time for their skill sets to be utilized by a NYR, Habs, Pens, Caps or Ducks squad for example.

Be nice to get a pick for Millsy as well.

That'll make up for all the years of buying since 1970 at the trade deadline.

Add Sbisa to that list as well. That's the most logical way to move forward.

Another loss on this trip and sell mode hits hard.

Burrows to Mtl or NYR makes sense.

Miller would make a great back up plan for someone, not sure who is interested.

One of Hansen, Granlund or Baertschi.
I'd want a first and a good prospect for Hansen, less for the others, but not a lot less. I kind of like Granlund more than Baertchi now, but it is a toss up for me.

One of Sbisa or Gudbranson, whichever one returns the most.
Sbisa is growing on me, so going forward with him next year is fine, because I like Tryamkin on the right side in Gudbranson's slot. I kind of like the defense right now, when Biega and Larsen aren't playing. As a group they have some developing to do, but I'd be fine with them moving forward.

Miller, Burrows, Gudbranson (depending on his injury) and Hansen should all be on table.

Hansen is a UFA after this season, and will be 31. Don't want to make another Higgins contract mistake here. Now is the time to deal him

RoyalDude wrote:Miller, Burrows, Gudbranson (depending on his injury) and Hansen should all be on table.

Hansen is a UFA after this season, and will be 31. Don't want to make another Higgins contract mistake here. Now is the time to deal him

Check that. Hansen is a UFA after next season, not this one. He is an excellent player on an excellent contract. Only reason to move him this season is that we may lose a pretty good forward in the expansion draft for nothing and he is quite a bit older that Baertchi and Granlund. However, if no playoff team is willing to pay up, I'd keep Hansen and trade one of the others or expose one of them in the expansion draft.

Hockey Widow wrote:

SKYO wrote:I say adios burrows and hansen, team with them is still a bottom feeder, time for their skill sets to be utilized by a NYR, Habs, Pens, Caps or Ducks squad for example.

Be nice to get a pick for Millsy as well.

That'll make up for all the years of buying since 1970 at the trade deadline.

Add Sbisa to that list as well. That's the most logical way to move forward.

It's crazy looking back at all the Canucks trades since it's inception, a lot of trading 2nd rounders to 9th rounders for reclamation projects and castoffs, while sometimes the Canucks did the same in trading older players after their value dropped.

The best trades were brazen moves like trading Linden in 98 for a couple young guys.

Then burke's wizardry for both sedins.

Team has never been a "seller" really, it goes to show how much they don't think of drafting/developing over the decades, just trying to appease the bandwagon fan base to sell a mediocre amount of tickets, to help stay financially afloat, team has never truly tried to tank either...always a middle team, floundering away in the unknown pacific west coast.

What Benning is doing now over 3 years (thanks to NTC etc), Keenan did in one fell swoop in 1997/98.

Trading 1994 cup run team: Trevor Linden, Martin Gelinas, Kirk McLean, Mike Sillinger, Gino Odjick, and Dave Babych.

Now it's the trading of the 2011 cup run team: Kesler, Bieksa soon Hansen, Burrows and maybe one of Edler/Tanev down the road, then the Sedins retire in a couple years.

Anyways I hope this team can learn from this franchises mistakes over the decades, learn when to sell players, gain some draft picks, don't be afraid of making big bold moves, if it makes sense.

Team needs more youth and picks badly for the rebuild, sooner we can move out vets for picks now, the likely we get a high pick for another player to build around.

Rebuilding is no easy task. I'm hard pressed to know who to move because I don't know, yet, if we are going to continue this style of trapping, dump and chase hockey.
If I knew that was going to change, I may well feel different.
As it sits now, I would move Hansen, and I like Hansen but under this style of play, he's just going to keep piling up the injuries. Most hockey people say, oh, he's in great shape, he can play till he's 37.
Don't bet on that. I see injuries pushing him out of the game soon.
What's even more alarming is Tanev. So young! So many heavy hits taken,
He took two more in Boston this morning, the second one, he barely got up from.
It hardly gets mentioned anymore.
Because of this, I would reluctantly move him now.
These bone crunching hits are bad news and you gotta think, accumulative.

Two of the guys with the most heart but they are taking a beating on this team.
Maybe things would be different with a quicker puck movement game style.

Cherry Picker wrote:

RoyalDude wrote:Miller, Burrows, Gudbranson (depending on his injury) and Hansen should all be on table.

Hansen is a UFA after this season, and will be 31. Don't want to make another Higgins contract mistake here. Now is the time to deal him

Check that. Hansen is a UFA after next season, not this one. He is an excellent player on an excellent contract. Only reason to move him this season is that we may lose a pretty good forward in the expansion draft for nothing and he is quite a bit older that Baertchi and Granlund. However, if no playoff team is willing to pay up, I'd keep Hansen and trade one of the others or expose one of them in the expansion draft.

Asset management should be what the team looks at - though given the debacle last year with Hamhuis and Vrbata I highly doubt they do.

Hansen or one of Granlund/Baertschi should be gone. Can't protect them all, somebody will either be lost for nothing, or you bite the bullet and get something for them now. Doesn't matter if it's only 50 cents on the dollar, at least you'll have something rather than zero. Same goes for one of Sbisa or Gudbranson - shop them at the deadline and see what happens. Yes I know you can only lose one player total but somebody is gone, figure out who is most likely and get rid of him so you can expose a lesser player.

I actually hope they keep Hansen, he's everything I like in a player - tough, fast, can play any line, cheap as well. For those same reasons he will get you something good at the deadline as contenders will value his attributes. Would be a tough call for me between him and Granlund even though Granlund is much younger.

If they lose somebody for nothing just so they can contribute for the last 20 odd games of another lost season they remain the same sort of backward thinking idiots who have successfully finished in the bottom 10 two of the last 3 years (assuming they do this year, which is highly likely).

The only thing with Hansen is do they sign him to big bucks after next season when he hits UFA if some other team doesn't when he will be 31. He like Burrows will feel he is due for a big retirement contract since his value on ice has been way over what his value is in his contract for the last 4 years. Now is the time to trade him, or extend him right away and have him, Edler and Eriksson be the cagey vets to help keep the kids in line once the twins are gone after next season. A big decision

I'm torn on Miller, trade him if you get an inkling that he will test the open waters of July. They should be talking to him now hopefully, to get an idea what he wants to do

Hoping Benning's asset mgmt on expiring contracts is unlike last seasons TD

Trades needs to happen but since RD said any player with a NTC wont be moved it starts to lower the number of players, then combine them with the players with other version of TC and that is reduced even more.

Finally with the fact that the team wants to try and make the playoffs all players are off the selling list unless it is 4th line plugs.

So my prediction for this years TDD activity is nothing.

My prediction for the off season is sign 1 or 2 of the UFA we have for their final contract, pick up another plug in the off season and hear how this team will try again to make the playoffs next season.

Welcome to a team that will never be good toe excite you and never be bad enough to land a top end talent.

We just need to hope that the players drafted are properly developed and they become 1st line forwards or we trade 1 top D for a top forward.

SKYO wrote:It's crazy looking back at all the Canucks trades since it's inception, a lot of trading 2nd rounders to 9th rounders for reclamation projects and castoffs, while sometimes the Canucks did the same in trading older players after their value dropped.

What is crazier is looking at what those second and third rounders became.....and then complaining about the loss of picks.

Topper wrote:

SKYO wrote:It's crazy looking back at all the Canucks trades since it's inception, a lot of trading 2nd rounders to 9th rounders for reclamation projects and castoffs, while sometimes the Canucks did the same in trading older players after their value dropped.

What is crazier is looking at what those second and third rounders became.....and then complaining about the loss of picks.

Its neat you know with absolute certainty who the Canucks would have chosen with those traded picks.