CanucksCorner.com Forums

Island Nucklehead wrote:

ESQ wrote:Does anybody else think its odd that the Flames are supposedly coming out of a rebuild, yet they're icing one of the oldest teams?

It seems like they're burning up their stars' prime years, while still giving up assets for vets to make them marginally more competitive.

Holy Glass Houses, Batman!

Of their top-10 scorers last season, only 2 were 30+. For Vancouver....

You highlighted it... and yet somehow still seemed to have missed it.

Flames are done rebuilding (just one pick in the top 100 for the upcoming draft).

Canucks are in the midst of a rebuild (they'll be one of the youngest teams in the league in 2 years).

ESQ wrote: ...In other words, classic Burkie! They've now given up 2 2nds for one year of Elliott and 2 years of Smith, and have one pick in the first 3 rounds after getting swept in the 1st round.

But luckily for Calgary, Burkie is going to make that one phone call, just 25 cents...

Island Nucklehead wrote: Even after the TDD (so minus Hansen and Burrows), the Canucks were just .5 years younger than Calgary (27.2 vs 27.7). So there's that.

Just sayin', if you're gonna call the Flames old...

Ok fair point - where do you find the average age calculator, by the way?

And my finally However is - HOWEVER, the Canucks aren't sending out 2nd rounders to get back 35 year old goalies!

Strangelove wrote: Smith is no "workhorse capable of playing a lot"... he's missed 52 games in the last 2 years.

And yet his stats (including minutes played) are very similar to Miller's since he arrived in Vancouver. Why are we thinking about keeping Miller, again?

ESQ wrote: where do you find the average age calculator, by the way?

And my finally However is - HOWEVER, the Canucks aren't sending out 2nd rounders to get back 35 year old goalies!

The post TDD age was a tweet referenced by one of the talking heads. The one on NHLnumbers actually had us marginally older than Calgary (but I assume that included Burrows and Hansen). For next year, it looks like we're fairly comparable (27.5 Vcr, 27.8 Cgy).

Careful ESQ, the pick is only a 2nd if the Flames make the playoffs. I think this management group would GLADLY do that trade if it meant 2 home playoff dates.

Island Nucklehead wrote: And yet his stats (including minutes played) are very similar to Miller's since he arrived in Vancouver. Why are we thinking about keeping Miller, again?

Because we don't need a workhorse. We have Markstrom who, barring injury, should see more minutes. And in the next 2 years Demko will be brought up and minutes will be given to him!

We want someone who can ease the younger tenders into the NHL. If Miller is willing to do that then bring him back, if he wants a shot at a Cup he will go elsewhere.

Aaronp18 wrote:

Island Nucklehead wrote: And yet his stats (including minutes played) are very similar to Miller's since he arrived in Vancouver. Why are we thinking about keeping Miller, again?

Because we don't need a workhorse. We have Markstrom who, barring injury, should see more minutes. And in the next 2 years Demko will be brought up and minutes will be given to him!

We want someone who can ease the younger tenders into the NHL. If Miller is willing to do that then bring him back, if he wants a shot at a Cup he will go elsewhere.

There won't be a long list of teams that want Miller as their number one. Maybe Carolina. Other than that off the top of my head I can't really think of a team, Detroit maybe? Point being I don't see Miller having a lot of teams coming hard after him. His best shot at taking a number one job is still with Vancouver. We all know he wasn't protected so as we could protect Markstrom. We also know he wasn't signed to make him less enticing for Vegas. We also know his agent thinks something will get done before July 1st and assuming that means we aren't trading his rights, I assume that means a deal with the Canucks.

The real question remains as to how much value Benning places on Miller as a number one over Markstrom as a number one. Everything Benning says in that regard leads me to believe he doesn't have confidence in Markstrom, yet. His last comments were how he thought Markstrom had the potential to be a number one someday. Well so does Demko.

This thought process gives Miller more leverage than he should have and could lead to a two year deal at a higher cap than most of us will be happy with. That's my fear anyway. I'm all for Miller 1-2 years at Markstrom money. If Demko is ready next year then trade Markstrom. Miller can teach Demko and get him ready. But to get high value for Markstrom you gotta let him play. But then again if we trade Markstrom, then Miller is gone, we have nothing in the way of support for Demko in the system.

Oh to over think everything......

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Careful ESQ, the pick is only a 2nd if the Flames make the playoffs. I think this management group would GLADLY do that trade if it meant 2 home playoff dates.

Yeesh, what a pessimist!

At least with Benning, the only TDD acquisitions he's made were a 2nd for Baertschi (clear win, and acquiring a 22-year old player) and Forsling for Clendenning (probably a wash, but only got us a 4 year older player anyways).

For all of the criticism of his trades, I think the oldest player he's acquired in a trade was probably 24-year old Sutter.
EDIT - corrected myself, there was Dorsett (27) for a 3rd and Prust (31) for a 5th + Kass.

ESQ wrote:

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Careful ESQ, the pick is only a 2nd if the Flames make the playoffs. I think this management group would GLADLY do that trade if it meant 2 home playoff dates.

Yeesh, what a pessimist!

lol oh lighten up!

Island Nucklehead wrote:

Strangelove wrote: Smith is no "workhorse capable of playing a lot"... he's missed 52 games in the last 2 years.

And yet his stats (including minutes played) are very similar to Miller's since he arrived in Vancouver.

How is "since Miller arrived in Vancouver" relevant to our conversation about Mike Smith?

But since you insist on squeezing Miller into this little chat...

Total minutes played over the last 2 years:

Miller: 6255
Smith: 4956

But yeah not sure why you keep bending over backwards to turn this into a Miller conversation...

Island Nucklehead wrote: Why are we thinking about keeping Miller, again?

"we"??

I was one of the few who were completely on board with the Miller signing since Day One, 3 yrs ago.

Why?

It was important at the time to have strong mentors as stop-gaps and an established #1.

(I also liked the fact we didn't have to give up assets for him and that he took a pay-cut)

Now as for re-signing Miller... well I am a little torn.

I haven't said much on the subject and can't say much now because that would be off-topic!

Over the last 3 seasons the Gong Show in the Cow Town crease:

Hiller, Ramo, Ortio, (remember when they carried all 3 because they were afraid to lose one?)

Backstrom, Elliott, Johnson, Smith.

Flames have only won one round since 2004 and personally I can see that trend continuing...

So you're saying the goalie graveyard has moved east?

I'm Ok with Miller coming back *depending upon the price* - but with that, I'd like to see more of Markstrom next year just to see if he has it. I'm still not sold on him, and who knows what we have in Demko - so Miller provides some stability in net for a young team in need of that.

But then we may not be close to the cap, so a one year contract on Miller likely won't affect us at any price.

Cornuck wrote: So you're saying the goalie graveyard has moved east?

It follows Burkie around... Giguere, The Monster Gustavsson, Reimer, Scrivens…

Cornuck wrote: I'm Ok with Miller coming back *depending upon the price* - but with that, I'd like to see more of Markstrom next year just to see if he has it. I'm still not sold on him, and who knows what we have in Demko - so Miller provides some stability in net for a young team in need of that.

But then we may not be close to the cap, so a one year contract on Miller likely won't affect us at any price.

Yeah if it's a one-year deal (cuz 35+ contract) I'm definitely good with it.

Old Man Miller has been playing well and has been healthy

(unlike some other goalie I'm thinking of).

I think Markstrom and the kids could use one more year of Miller's mentoring.

And if he falls apart due to old age, hey it's a rebuild...

Strangelove wrote:

Cornuck wrote: So you're saying the goalie graveyard has moved east?

It follows Burkie around... Giguere, The Monster Gustavsson, Reimer, Scrivens…

Cornuck wrote: I'm Ok with Miller coming back *depending upon the price* - but with that, I'd like to see more of Markstrom next year just to see if he has it. I'm still not sold on him, and who knows what we have in Demko - so Miller provides some stability in net for a young team in need of that.

But then we may not be close to the cap, so a one year contract on Miller likely won't affect us at any price.

Yeah if it's a one-year deal (cuz 35+ contract) I'm definitely good with it.

Old Man Miller has been playing well and has been healthy

(unlike some other goalie I'm thinking of).

I think Markstrom and the kids could use one more year of Miller's mentoring.

And if he falls apart due to old age, hey it's a rebuild...

I Wouldn't mind seeing Miller back, and I really don't care about the price... but I care about the term.

1 year - please. Dollars don't really matter to us this year.

$$$ do matter, they always matter.

First if you over pay then it can set a precedent on other deals.

Second it allows you to make a deal and take back a bad contract.

Reefer2 wrote:$$$ do matter, they always matter.

First if you over pay then it can set a precedent on other deals.

Second it allows you to make a deal and take back a bad contract.

ok, let me clarify.. of course money matters.. I am saying so long as its only a 1 year contract, if we pay an extra million or so to Miller, It doesn't matter to our cap for the year.

I understand that we want to be in a position to take on Salary (and we still will be) to potentially make a deal, but why would we want to take someone elses bad contract?!? Most new definitions of 'Bad Contract' are directly related to term.
An example: If Lui's contract was 4 years with 2 years of options and had movement, it would be fine. but 6 years of NMC makes it a bad contract. The year he signed the contract and his production determined the $6 million.

Last thing we need as a rebuilding team is another long term Albatross Contract.

Madcombinepilot wrote: ok, let me clarify.. of course money matters.. I am saying so long as its only a 1 year contract, if we pay an extra million or so to Miller, It doesn't matter to our cap for the year.

I understand that we want to be in a position to take on Salary (and we still will be) to potentially make a deal, but why would we want to take someone elses bad contract?!? Last thing we need as a rebuilding team is another long term Albatross Contract.

I'd be more than OK with Miller getting an NMC if its a one-year deal, its not as though there will be much market for him at the deadline and other teams (i.e. Vegas) may shy away from an NMC.