Too many folks using revisionary history to support their arguments that Benning shouldn't have signed Miller. My opinion is the management and players honestly felt they could compete for a Cup, so they did everything they could to give the team what they needed....depth and goaltending.

Those two guys have value and combine for a 7 million dollar cap hit, that's money not well spent for them considering they aren't in a position to win. Last year I wouldn't have said that, this year I would.
- LeftCoaster

It's not revisionist history to suggest it was never a good deal, I would be singing the same tune if Miller had played to his career averages.

Benning was right they did need depth and goal tending, but he overpaid for it, like you said he isn't a good negotiator and that is the point that is being made.

How so? We got Ehrhoff from the Sharks in that situation. And if you take a cap dump, you're getting an asset back that will strengthen your team. Who cares what this core thinks, pampering them and letting them influence your decisions will get you nowhere. Their time has passed.

I'm all for moving the Higgins' and Bieksa's on this team, but I don't see how that justifies overpaying for mediocrity. It actually has nothing to do with Miller and Sbisa. You could still move them both even if Miller and Sbisa were never here.
- Nucker101

They have 11 million dollars in cap space with the 10% overage, plus they can move a few guys for another 4 to 7 million, it's not an issue. I would never hold back cap space on the chance you may come across a good deal. If it's there and you happen to have space sure, do it.

He didn't over-pay, he gave the guy market value and didn't didn't squeeze him because he felt like that's what the team needed. Miller was the best tender available last year. You play the game to win. Could he have paid 500 thousand less, maybe, I wasn't there so I don't know.

I personally don't like either ones style. I think you can get players a lot cheaper to fill their same stats
- vancouverdawg

This is the bottom line.

You want a physical 6/7 d-man that can throw hits but isn't very good offensively or defensively? There's literally like 50 of them who played in the AHL last year including Alex Biega.

Or a goalie who puts up a .911sv%? and finished 32nd in that category? There's plenty of guys out there who make less than half of what Miller makes that can do that.

It's not revisionist history to suggest it was never a good deal, I would be singing the same tune if Miller had played to his career averages.

Benning was right they did need depth and goal tending, but he overpaid for it, like you said he isn't a good negotiator and that is the point that is being made.
- belcherbd

My comments on him negotiating was more on the Sbisa signing, that was a poor deal. The Miller deal was one where he went out and got the best goaltender on the market. Although I'd have been happier with a two year deal.

Not one of those guys deserve more than a 4 K raise
- vancouverdawg

That's not the way it works with RFA's

Any salary under 600K is a 110% raise for qualify offer
under 1 million is 105% raise and over 1 million cannot be lower.

This is based off of the players last year of earning not the salary cap or average. I think it also takes into account any bonuses earned.

They have 11 million dollars in cap space with the 10% overage, plus they can move a few guys for another 4 to 7 million, it's not an issue. I would never hold back cap space on the chance you may come across a good deal. If it's there and you happen to have space sure, do it.

He didn't over-pay, he gave the guy market value and didn't didn't squeeze him because he felt like that's what the team needed. Miller was the best tender available last year. You play the game to win. Could he have paid 500 thousand less, maybe, I wasn't there so I don't know.
- LeftCoaster

It was known that Miller wanted to be close to his wife in California. Anaheim wanted to go with their two young guns. LA is set. SJ had Niemi and Stalock. Both the term and cap hit were horrible considering both the leverage Benning had and Miller's career sv%.

Who was he bidding against that he had to go ahead and offer 3 years with a full NMC and give him 6M per?

The criticism isn't that Benning signed Miller to a contract. I think most can understand the line of thinking that the Canucks needed stability in net, even if they didn't like the Miller acquisition.

The criticism is that Benning wasn't able find a solution that didn't handcuff the team in terms of salary cap. It is widely reported that Miller only wanted to be on the coast to be close to his wife and her work and that he didn't have other suitors. Benning overpaid for something he didn't have to.

It was not money well spent at the time and I don't understand that line of thinking.

Same goes with Sbisa and arguably his other signings.
- belcherbd

Wait, Miller would have signed to less and you know this for fact... interesting. With your skills, why did they hire Benning?

It would of given Benning more options, perhaps he could keep Matthais or Richardson if he wished, perhaps Miller is easier to move to a team like SJ at 4.5, perhaps Sbisa get 5.1 per year.

The team doesn't need vast amounts of cap space but they will be hard pressed to sign Baertschi(.875), Vey(.770), Corrado(.630), Clendening(.860), Markstrom(1.4), Kennins(.75) and Grenier(.815) with only about 3-5 million, depending on who you ask.

The numbers I posted are the minimum qualifying offers for those players, which is 6.1 million.
- belcherbd

Miller wouldn't have signed for 4.5 million. My opinion. 6 million isn't an issue, the third year is. As for signing all those RFA's, do you honestly think they don't have a plan to move people out which will allow them to get the younger guys signed?

Wait, Miller would have signed to less and you know this for fact... interesting. With your skills, why did they hire Benning?
- boonerbuck

Obviously all we can do is speculate, but it seems to be a legitimate debate.

They have 11 million dollars in cap space with the 10% overage, plus they can move a few guys for another 4 to 7 million, it's not an issue. I would never hold back cap space on the chance you may come across a good deal. If it's there and you happen to have space sure, do it.

He didn't over-pay, he gave the guy market value and didn't didn't squeeze him because he felt like that's what the team needed. Miller was the best tender available last year. You play the game to win. Could he have paid 500 thousand less, maybe, I wasn't there so I don't know.
- LeftCoaster

They have 3.2 in space currently at the cap of 69 million. http://www.generalfanager.com/teams

James Mirtle of the Globe and Mail recently said "NHL's inflator may well be less than 5 per cent but more than zero. First time if it happens. That is more downward pressure on the NHL's cap. A 2.5% escalator would be a drop of roughly $1.7-million in next year's salary cap! That's such a big difference you can see why league would fight that "compromise" solution. Some teams can't afford that low a cap. To clarify... if NHL's cap is expected to be $71-million with 5% escalator, it'd be roughly $69.3-million with 2.5%. Big difference."

So depending on what happens with the escalator it looks like the cap will be 69-71 million.

That's not the way it works with RFA's

Any salary under 600K is a 110% raise for qualify offer
under 1 million is 105% raise and over 1 million cannot be lower.

This is based off of the players last year of earning not the salary cap or average. I think it also takes into account any bonuses earned.
- belcherbd

The highest paid one will be Sven who will make about 1.2- 1.4.

Guys like Gaunce will get a 100 K maybe as a raise. Vey same type raise Clennd same type Grenier same type

It was known that Miller wanted to be close to his wife in California. Anaheim wanted to go with their two young guns. LA is set. SJ had Niemi and Stalock. Both the term and cap hit were horrible considering both the leverage Benning had and Miller's career sv%.

Who was he bidding against that he had to go ahead and offer 3 years with a full NMC and give him 6M per?
- Nucker101

You don't know what happened or who had offers in so stop pretending like you do. He was the best on the open market so he paid the guy. To me it's the third year that he shouldn't have given Miller.

And btw...he has a modified NTC not a NMC.

Wait, Miller would have signed to less and you know this for fact... interesting. With your skills, why did they hire Benning?
- boonerbuck

Maybe you misunderstood me, it doesn't matter what Miller was willing to take.

Benning should of known that 6 million and 3 years was an overpayment for an average goalie in his mid 30's.

If Miller wasn't willing to take less than Benning should of looked elsewhere for a solution.

You don't know what happened or who had offers in so stop pretending like you do. He was the best on the open market so he paid the guy. To me it's the third year that he shouldn't have given Miller.

And btw...he has a modified NTC not a NMC.
- LeftCoaster

Okay...guess we might as well stop posting since we're apparently not allowed to speculate based on the information we have.

Miller wasn't really that much better than Hiller if you look at their save percentages. And yay, he's allowed to give a list of 5 teams where he'd accept to a trade to. He could do what James Wisniewski did to the Jackets and list a few teams that will have no interest in him.

The highest paid one will be Sven who will make about 1.2- 1.4.

Guys like Gaunce will get a 100 K maybe as a raise. Vey same type raise Clennd same type Grenier same type
- vancouverdawg

The numbers I posted next to their names were the minimum qualifying offer then needed to receive to remain canucks property.

Sven made 832,500 last year and would need to be offered ~875K .

They have 3.2 in space currently at the cap of 69 million. http://www.generalfanager.com/teams

James Mirtle of the Globe and Mail recently said "NHL's inflator may well be less than 5 per cent but more than zero. First time if it happens. That is more downward pressure on the NHL's cap. A 2.5% escalator would be a drop of roughly $1.7-million in next year's salary cap! That's such a big difference you can see why league would fight that "compromise" solution. Some teams can't afford that low a cap. To clarify... if NHL's cap is expected to be $71-million with 5% escalator, it'd be roughly $69.3-million with 2.5%. Big difference."

So depending on what happens with the escalator it looks like the cap will be 69-71 million.
- belcherbd

The Canucks are a cap team, they spend to the cap every year to try and win. The only bad contract they have, in terms of dollars, is Sbisa's.

The Canucks are a cap team, they spend to the cap every year to try and win. The only bad contract they have, in terms of dollars, is Sbisa's.
- LeftCoaster

And Miller....

Maybe you misunderstood me, it doesn't matter what Miller was willing to take.

Benning should of known that 6 million and 3 years was an overpayment for an average goalie in his mid 30's.

If Miller wasn't willing to take less than Benning should of looked elsewhere for a solution.
- belcherbd

Lack and Markstrom weren't an option back then, and as I recall, before Miller signed, the two backups to Lack that people were hot to sign, were signed leaving Benning with no options. The only other way to have done it was to trade for a goalie and after the bad taste of the Luongo trade, the fan base would have revolted. The deal is fine, the only issue is that our D core deteriorated faster than was anticipated and Benning needs to address that.

Lack and Markstrom weren't an option back then, and as I recall, before Miller signed, the two backups to Lack that people were hot to sign, were signed leaving Benning with no options. The only other way to have done it was to trade for a goalie and after the bad taste of the Luongo trade, the fan base would have revolted. The deal is fine, the only issue is that our D core deteriorated faster than was anticipated and Benning needs to address that.
- DariusKnight

A 6 million dollar goalie should make the defense look better than they are, not rely on them.

Miller wouldn't have signed for 4.5 million. My opinion. 6 million isn't an issue, the third year is. As for signing all those RFA's, do you honestly think they don't have a plan to move people out which will allow them to get the younger guys signed?
- LeftCoaster

I'm not sure what Miller would of signed for, it doesn't really matter because in my opinion he was signed for too much and for too long.

Had he signed for less or had Benning found another solution, Benning would have more options this off season instead of possibly be forced to move an asset for a potential low return.

Teams know the Canucks will be pressed up against the cap and I doubt they will do them any favors. I'm sure Benning planned to move out vets when he acquired a bunch of players that require waivers but he would have more flexibility if he had negotiated better deals.

The problem is that unlike the Gillis blunders, at least half of the fanbase hated the Sbisa and Miller deals right away. Ballard and Booth at least brought some hope and were considered to have positive trade value when we acquired their contracts. there was sam rationale behind those moves.

It's annoying as a fan when a move that you hate right away continues to look bad or even worse than you originally thought.
- Nucker101

You're on a roll, Nucker

Okay...guess we might as well stop posting since we're apparently not allowed to speculate based on the information we have.

Miller wasn't really that much better than Hiller if you look at their save percentages. And yay, he's allowed to give a list of 5 teams where he'd accept to a trade to. He could do what James Wisniewski did to the Jackets and list a few teams that will have no interest in him.
- Nucker101

You don't have any information, you're just guessing and passing it off as facts.

I'm guessing he didn't want Hiller, who was cast aside by Anaheim because he chokes in the playoffs, like he did this year, my guess is he wanted Miller because he thought he was the better goaltender and he gave the team a better chance to win.

Cap room gives you leverage in trade negotiations. And the teams up against the cap will sometimes give away a quality player cheaply in a trade or even be willing to throw in a good pick or prospect if you take a cap dump off of their hands.

That could help accelerate the rebuild/retool or whatever they want to call it.


The "we won't win the cup soon anyway so overpaying doesn't matter" line of thinking boggles my mind.
- Nucker101

I don't understand how in less than a year you went from the guy who thinks we will suck and looks forward to the sucking so we can rebuild to non stop stressing about overpaying some players for the short term and maybe sucking for the next couple of seasons.

You gave Gillis so much leeway for his screw ups over the years but started ripping this GM a new ahole by the end of 1 season for not securing you a better team and contracts.

I'm at least happy that our GM's questionable contracts are short with clauses for both parties to get out of or plug players that can be dumped in the minors like Sbisa. I don't feel that dread I use to anymore.

Maybe you forget what being handcuffed to a contract looks like already.

You don't have any information, you're just guessing and passing it off as facts.

I'm guessing he didn't want Hiller, who was cast aside by Anaheim because he chokes in the playoffs, like he did this year, my guess is he wanted Miller because he thought he was the better goaltender and he gave the team a better chance to win.
- LeftCoaster

Well speaking of facts, is there any statistical proof that Miller was the best goalie available and a clear upgrade on Lack that was worth 6 million over 3 years?

If rumours are true then maybe Hamhuis will be gone too
- vancouverdawg

There will be no franson.