Re: From Bountiful to Ponoka
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:13 pm
Re Docs drivel about Miller :Not really. Markstrom has performed almost as well and is younger and improving. Thanks for the drama though. 

Oh was that the reason!Mëds wrote: Eriksson was a bad idea from the start because the reason for getting him was to have him play with the Sedins in hopes of recreating their WC's magic.
Actually this is what I said:Mëds wrote: Doc will argue that Loui's contract is a smart one because in the final 2 years his NTC changes to allow for them to move him to 15 teams of Eriksson's choosing, and because his salary will drop to $4M in real dollars.
Are there 16 "contenders"?Mëds wrote: Problem with that is that Loui will want to go to a contender, so his $6M cap hit won't be an easy thing to absorb.
16 teams buddy!!!Mëds wrote: A cap floor team might want his cap hit and reduced salary you say? I say that very few cap floor teams are going to be on his list of teams.
Yeahno, they thought the Sedins were going to play another 6 years!Mëds wrote: Giving Eriksson $6M with 6 years of term was a poor decision unless the plan was for him to be productive AFTER the Sedins are gone.
Miller has been good value for his entire 3-yr contract, .917 sv% over that time.Blob Mckenzie wrote:Re Docs drivel about Miller :Not really. Markstrom has performed almost as well and is younger and improving. Thanks for the drama though.
True, but how does a rebuilding team, hoping to peak 2-3 years after the end of Miller's contract, benefit from this quality goaltending? Wouldn't they have been better off losing the games Miller kept them in, and drafting higher?Strangelove wrote:Miller has been good value for his entire 3-yr contract, .917 sv% over that time.Blob Mckenzie wrote:Re Docs drivel about Miller :Not really. Markstrom has performed almost as well and is younger and improving. Thanks for the drama though.
(slightly above his career average).....
This team would be seriously fucked-up right now without Miller...
Probably last year yah, but look at what happened anyways. This year and next not so deep...Ronning's Ghost wrote:True, but how does a rebuilding team, hoping to peak 2-3 years after the end of Miller's contract, benefit from this quality goaltending? Wouldn't they have been better off losing the games Miller kept them in, and drafting higher?Strangelove wrote:Miller has been good value for his entire 3-yr contract, .917 sv% over that time.Blob Mckenzie wrote:Re Docs drivel about Miller :Not really. Markstrom has performed almost as well and is younger and improving. Thanks for the drama though.
(slightly above his career average).....
This team would be seriously fucked-up right now without Miller...
My comment referred to the wisdom of signing Miller in the first place, and so how he affected their performance in the three years of his contract, (including the year McDavid was drafted -- and guaranteed to the team that finished last), which are now widely acknowledged to have been rebuilding years for the Canucks. Next year, the Canucks may no longer receive Miller's quality goaltending, depending on their plans, and his. In either case, it is unlikely he will still be playing in 2-3 years, when experts predict that the Canucks will be relevant again, so their current goaltending plans would appear to hinge on the development of Demko.rats19 wrote:Probably last year yah, but look at what happened anyways. This year and next not so deep...Ronning's Ghost wrote:True, but how does a rebuilding team, hoping to peak 2-3 years after the end of Miller's contract, benefit from this quality goaltending? Wouldn't they have been better off losing the games Miller kept them in, and drafting higher?Strangelove wrote:Miller has been good value for his entire 3-yr contract, .917 sv% over that time.Blob Mckenzie wrote:Re Docs drivel about Miller :Not really. Markstrom has performed almost as well and is younger and improving. Thanks for the drama though.
(slightly above his career average).....
This team would be seriously fucked-up right now without Miller...
When the Genius signed Miller, I argued furiously that the contract was great value for Canucks.Ronning's Ghost wrote: My comment referred to the wisdom of signing Miller in the first place, and so how he affected their performance in the three years of his contract, which are now widely acknowledged to have been rebuilding years for the Canucks.
Nope, the team that finished last in 2015 only had a 20% chance of winning the lottery (McDavid).Ronning's Ghost wrote: (including the year McDavid was drafted -- and guaranteed to the team that finished last),
Miller gave Canucks a great deal of leadership, and has mentored Marstrombone.Ronning's Ghost wrote: Next year, the Canucks may no longer receive Miller's quality goaltending, depending on their plans, and his. In either case, it is unlikely he will still be playing in 2-3 years, when experts predict that the Canucks will be relevant again, so their current goaltending plans would appear to hinge on the development of Demko.
it seems LE = Geoff CourtnallTopper wrote:Sadly, Jacob 's development has stalled and he has done nothing to wrestle the #1 job from Miller. It is unfortunate.
In hindsite, for those who see with their myopic brown eye, the LE signing has been disappointing. he is definitely a streaky point scorer and if you were to look at the stats, he's about 6-8 points behind where you'd expect him in the lineup.
such a genius in hockey, such a nemesis in politics ...Strangelove wrote:When the Genius signed Miller, I argued furiously that the contract was great value for Canucks.Ronning's Ghost wrote: My comment referred to the wisdom of signing Miller in the first place, and so how he affected their performance in the three years of his contract, which are now widely acknowledged to have been rebuilding years for the Canucks.
Now that the Genius (and yours truly) have been proven right
... someone demands to know why the Genius signed a great value contract for Canucks!![]()
Nope, the team that finished last in 2015 only had a 20% chance of winning the lottery (McDavid).Ronning's Ghost wrote: (including the year McDavid was drafted -- and guaranteed to the team that finished last),![]()
Miller gave Canucks a great deal of leadership, and has mentored Marstrombone.Ronning's Ghost wrote: Next year, the Canucks may no longer receive Miller's quality goaltending, depending on their plans, and his. In either case, it is unlikely he will still be playing in 2-3 years, when experts predict that the Canucks will be relevant again, so their current goaltending plans would appear to hinge on the development of Demko.
(Marstrombone will hopefully pass that on to Demko)
See, your young players must learn proper preparation, professionalism, winning attitude, etc.
Highly doubtful, Miller or no, Canucks would have done any better than Boeser, Juolevi, and Whoever.
Now please ensure that your seatbelt is securely fastened and your seat is in it's upright position.
And I agree, Miller has performed up to the value of his contract.Strangelove wrote:When the Genius signed Miller, I argued furiously that the contract was great value for Canucks.
Yeah, that would be me.Strangelove wrote:... someone demands to know why the Genius signed a great value contract for Canucks!![]()
OK, I botched that one, but even 20% would have been much higher than the chance they had.Strangelove wrote:Nope, the team that finished last in 2015 only had a 20% chance of winning the lottery (McDavid).Ronning's Ghost wrote: (including the year McDavid was drafted -- and guaranteed to the team that finished last),![]()
So it is your stance that the organization needs those qualities modeled individually by position, such that the Sedins, for example, would not suffice ? Even then, the Canucks could have found a veteran goalie who could have modeled all of the those traits, but was less talented at actually stopping pucks.Strangelove wrote:
Miller gave Canucks a great deal of leadership, and has mentored Marstrombone.
(Marstrombone will hopefully pass that on to Demko)
See, your young players must learn proper preparation, professionalism, winning attitude, etc.
So it is your position that the Canucks are further ahead with Boeser, Juolevi, and Whoever (+ Miller's no doubt exemplary leadership) than they would have been with McDavid, Matthews, and Whoever (+ some other goalie's only adequate mentorship) ? That is to say, two players who have yet to play in the NHL will be more useful in the crucial 2-3 years than two players of the same age who are already having NHL success ? This strains any sober credulity to the breaking point. What is in that kool-aid Doc ?Strangelove wrote:Highly doubtful, Miller or no, Canucks would have done any better than Boeser, Juolevi, and Whoever.
Does it interact synergistically with whatever that emoticon is smoking ?Strangelove wrote:
Yawn, fart, burp.Strangelove wrote:When the Genius signed Miller, I argued furiously that the contract was great value for Canucks.Ronning's Ghost wrote: My comment referred to the wisdom of signing Miller in the first place, and so how he affected their performance in the three years of his contract, which are now widely acknowledged to have been rebuilding years for the Canucks.
Now that the Genius (and yours truly) have been proven right
... someone demands to know why the Genius signed a great value contract for Canucks!![]()
Nope, the team that finished last in 2015 only had a 20% chance of winning the lottery (McDavid).Ronning's Ghost wrote: (including the year McDavid was drafted -- and guaranteed to the team that finished last),![]()
Miller gave Canucks a great deal of leadership, and has mentored Marstrombone.Ronning's Ghost wrote: Next year, the Canucks may no longer receive Miller's quality goaltending, depending on their plans, and his. In either case, it is unlikely he will still be playing in 2-3 years, when experts predict that the Canucks will be relevant again, so their current goaltending plans would appear to hinge on the development of Demko.
(Marstrombone will hopefully pass that on to Demko)
See, your young players must learn proper preparation, professionalism, winning attitude, etc.
Highly doubtful, Miller or no, Canucks would have done any better than Boeser, Juolevi, and Whoever.
Now please ensure that your seatbelt is securely fastened and your seat is in it's upright position.
So as GM you would've what... broken all 4 Sedin legs... for a 20% shot in a rigged lottery?Ronning's Ghost wrote: OK, I botched that one, but even 20% would have been much higher than the chance they had.
Yeah you're not getting any of this "Winning Culture" stuff at all are ya buds....Ronning's Ghost wrote: Canucks could have found a veteran goalie who could have modeled all of the those traits, but was less talented at actually stopping pucks.
UMMMM... no way were Canucks going to get McDavid there Bright Eyes.Ronning's Ghost wrote: So it is your position that the Canucks are further ahead with Boeser, Juolevi, and Whoever (+ Miller's no doubt exemplary leadership) than they would have been with McDavid, Matthews, and Whoever
One of your better posts.Reefer2 wrote: Yawn, fart, burp.