Meanwhile... the guys we should have in our top 6 vs the ones we get stuck with...

[Rindiculous]

Just now, wai_lai416 said:

Not really it would show how incredibly weak our depth is when you have to take a top 6 player to put on ur 4th line while playing 3rd and 4th liners in your top 6 ie garland mikheyev suter etc.

Every team has those types of players in the top 6.  It’s called chemistry.  Garland and Suter are perfect supplementary pieces to their lines cause they go to the dirty areas that other players on their lines don’t.  I made the exact same argument about Pearson for years.  He was the catalyst that made every line he was on the best line the Canucks had 

[wai_lai416]

1 minute ago, Rindiculous said:

Every team has those types of players in the top 6.  It’s called chemistry.  Garland and Suter are perfect supplementary pieces to their lines cause they go to the dirty areas that other players on their lines don’t.  I made the exact same argument about Pearson for years.  He was the catalyst that made every line he was on the best line the Canucks had 

lol no they are not.. they are there because the Canucks don’t have any players to stick on there.. suter have 0 chemistry on those lines it’s just he is slightly better option than pdg and mikheyev.. garland have looked good with ep line for the last couple games but they had 0 chemistry when they were together all the other time this season..

[Rindiculous]

1 minute ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol no they are not.. they are there because the Canucks don’t have any players to stick on there.. suter have 0 chemistry on those lines it’s just he is slightly better option than pdg and mikheyev.. garland have looked good with ep line for the last couple games but they had 0 chemistry when they were together all the other time this season..

While I admit Suter is not the main reason the Miller line is so good, he is a catalyst no other player Lindholm included has been able to provide there.  If you look at the line’s advanced stats, it is the 2nd best line in the league this year only behind the Mcdavid Drai and Hyman line.  Same with Garland on the Pettersson line.  Before garland that line has been utter dog with the exception of the occasional amazing Hoglander play.  This is because Garland is able to play along the walls which Pettersson can’t do and you need at least two of those a line to be able to cycle in the tocchet system.  You need guys who can cycle the wall.  These guys on our team are Hogs, Miller, Suter, Joshua, boeser to an extent , Blueger, and by far the best on the team…Garland.  Those are the guys who can carry the play 5 on 5 in the modern NHL.  Guys like Petey are good at converting that hard working play into goals, but he needs guys like that on his line.

 

Hockey is not a get the biggest names on the top lines.  All Canucks fans should know that, unless you are one of those still asking that age old question: Burrows, do we really need him?

[wai_lai416]

1 hour ago, Rindiculous said:

While I admit Suter is not the main reason the Miller line is so good, he is a catalyst no other player Lindholm included has been able to provide there.  If you look at the line’s advanced stats, it is the 2nd best line in the league this year only behind the Mcdavid Drai and Hyman line.  Same with Garland on the Pettersson line.  Before garland that line has been utter dog with the exception of the occasional amazing Hoglander play.  This is because Garland is able to play along the walls which Pettersson can’t do and you need at least two of those a line to be able to cycle in the tocchet system.  You need guys who can cycle the wall.  These guys on our team are Hogs, Miller, Suter, Joshua, boeser to an extent , Blueger, and by far the best on the team…Garland.  Those are the guys who can carry the play 5 on 5 in the modern NHL.  Guys like Petey are good at converting that hard working play into goals, but he needs guys like that on his line.

 

Hockey is not a get the biggest names on the top lines.  All Canucks fans should know that, unless you are one of those still asking that age old question: Burrows, do we really need him?

lol is suter the reason why boeser had his 36 goals or miller have his 90 points? They were doing just fine without suter before. Just like hoglander have his 18 goals without garland. Garland with ep looked like crap at the beginning of the season. The garland ep hoglander line may look good the past 3 games but you also have to look at the teams they played. Calgary buffalo Montreal.. not exactly a tough team to play against. Calling them the catalyst of the line is a big stretch. So how did ep manage to get his 40+ points without the pp or garland? Who was cycling the puck? Ep never was and never will be a guy that create chances by cycling.. most of ep point from 5v5 have been from rushes shot and a rebound or tip ins.. you post is just literal backhand shot at EP. He’s basically carried by the team his entire career base on what you are saying. 

[Canuckleheads Fan]

Don't know what NJ wanted from Vancouver for Toffoli, I suspect it was Hoggie or Pods, or maybe another asset that PA wasn't willing to part with. The word is that they weren't willing to part with them for Guentzel, who is better that Toff. Why would you trade Hoggie, already a 20-goal scorer on the rise? In Hoggie, they've finally found EP40's running mate. I think Pods is on the verge of a similar breakout. I'd like to see what Pods could do on the other wing with Petey and Hogs. I'm pretty sure Garland will be reunited with Joshua when he returns, but will it be on L3 with Lindholm? That would give that line a look like the last great line Lindy centered in Calgary. The other option is to make Lindy and Mik the shutdown pair, maybe with Suter, put Joshua on JT's other wing, and leave Garley with Petey. So many options and just 12-games to dial it in.

[IBatch]

9 hours ago, Gurn said:

The majority- is not all

I can't find a single one.  However Moose, one or two a year occur, and that's included in their stats (same with Elk).    Creating a dialogue that deer are dangerous when out and about on a hike, are more dangerous a bear or a cougar is silly.   Deer wrestling aside.   As in covering yourself in doe urine and going for it.    

 

Never see "beware of deer" signs on trails.   Cougars, yes, bears yes.    Instructions on how to hang your food etc.    Don't mess with Elk.   Or Moose.    Attacks from deer are extremely rare.    And as far as I can find,  non-fatal.   Although one I can find one that might have been.    Know of several Bear attacks, one my fishing guide saved a man's life from getting eaten in his own boat in Port Renfrew (Bear was sick, but was intent on killing the man, and was killed by my mate with his gaffe, wasn't easy either)...Polar bear hunting with a crossbow takes some serious cajones....A deer?   

 

 Vancouver Island has the smallest black-tail in Canada, but  the biggest Roosevelt Elk in the world, and the largest strain of black bears.    Elk, nothing like standing still while 50-60 females comes crashing through the bush and thundering past you, led by a buck the size of a war horse.   They are intimidating.    Same with the Elk in the East Kootenays.   A herd of a couple hundred used to graze on the golf course in aptly named Elkford when lived there as kid ... four!    When we went to the dump, rifle came with us,  Grizzlies the size of small cars - also intimidating.  

 

Sharks.   Scary.   Know the stats.  Bee's are lethal to those who need eppy pins.    Cougar's not a fun encounter.   A 25kg one, starving, killed an experienced women after she protected her daughter.   In princeton.   Bears get a camper or two every few years in BC/Alberta, sometimes while in their tents.    Decades ago, Jasper has right on their brochure not to get too close while taking pictures, and on it, a buck elk chasing a man down with camera in hand.    Aside from that warning, it's the only one i've seen, and it was about all wildlife, which of course you should respect.    Been to plenty of beaches with a shark sign too.   

 

A wolf, you're dead without a gun, if it decides to hunt you.   Seen a  black/grey alpha with two different coloured eyes, literally fill the bed of a full sized pickup lengthwise , winter coat, one of the scariest mugs.   Massive head and teeth ... which can chew through a Moose's femur in two or three bites.     That's scary.   A deer,  in the wild, are awfully careful not to come near you.    Ones that have been fed,  that could be trouble.   Same with urban deer.  

 

Close to 1.5-2 million car accident's.    That's unfortunate. 

Edited March 25 by IBatch

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, Canuckleheads Fan said:

Don't know what NJ wanted from Vancouver for Toffoli, I suspect it was Hoggie or Pods, or maybe another asset that PA wasn't willing to part with. The word is that they weren't willing to part with them for Guentzel, who is better that Toff. Why would you trade Hoggie, already a 20-goal scorer on the rise? In Hoggie, they've finally found EP40's running mate. I think Pods is on the verge of a similar breakout. I'd like to see what Pods could do on the other wing with Petey and Hogs. I'm pretty sure Garland will be reunited with Joshua when he returns, but will it be on L3 with Lindholm? That would give that line a look like the last great line Lindy centered in Calgary. The other option is to make Lindy and Mik the shutdown pair, maybe with Suter, put Joshua on JT's other wing, and leave Garley with Petey. So many options and just 12-games to dial it in.

Pretty sure Tochett will stick to the lines as is until Joshua's back, and by then have a pretty good idea of what to do.   If EPs line is going, not sure he will mess with that.    Joshua should add some jam to the third line.   Podz with Miller is another option.   

[Gurn]

6 hours ago, IBatch said:

I can't find a single one.  However Moose, one or two a year occur, and that's included in their stats (same with Elk).    Creating a dialogue that deer are dangerous when out and about on a hike, are more dangerous a bear or a cougar is silly.   Deer wrestling aside.   As in covering yourself in doe urine and going for it.    

 

Never see "beware of deer" signs on trails.   Cougars, yes, bears yes.    Instructions on how to hang your food etc.    Don't mess with Elk.   Or Moose.    Attacks from deer are extremely rare.    And as far as I can find,  non-fatal.   Although one I can find one that might have been.    Know of several Bear attacks, one my fishing guide saved a man's life from getting eaten in his own boat in Port Renfrew (Bear was sick, but was intent on killing the man, and was killed by my mate with his gaffe, wasn't easy either)...Polar bear hunting with a crossbow takes some serious cajones....A deer?   

 

 Vancouver Island has the smallest black-tail in Canada, but  the biggest Roosevelt Elk in the world, and the largest strain of black bears.    Elk, nothing like standing still while 50-60 females comes crashing through the bush and thundering past you, led by a buck the size of a war horse.   They are intimidating.    Same with the Elk in the East Kootenays.   A herd of a couple hundred used to graze on the golf course in aptly named Elkford when lived there as kid ... four!    When we went to the dump, rifle came with us,  Grizzlies the size of small cars - also intimidating.  

 

Sharks.   Scary.   Know the stats.  Bee's are lethal to those who need eppy pins.    Cougar's not a fun encounter.   A 25kg one, starving, killed an experienced women after she protected her daughter.   In princeton.   Bears get a camper or two every few years in BC/Alberta, sometimes while in their tents.    Decades ago, Jasper has right on their brochure not to get too close while taking pictures, and on it, a buck elk chasing a man down with camera in hand.    Aside from that warning, it's the only one i've seen, and it was about all wildlife, which of course you should respect.    Been to plenty of beaches with a shark sign too.   

 

A wolf, you're dead without a gun, if it decides to hunt you.   Seen a  black/grey alpha with two different coloured eyes, literally fill the bed of a full sized pickup lengthwise , winter coat, one of the scariest mugs.   Massive head and teeth ... which can chew through a Moose's femur in two or three bites.     That's scary.   A deer,  in the wild, are awfully careful not to come near you.    Ones that have been fed,  that could be trouble.   Same with urban deer.  

 

Close to 1.5-2 million car accident's.    That's unfortunate. 

 

[IBatch]

46 minutes ago, Gurn said:

 

lol.   Ok stay indoors!   What the heck is this anyways...

 

There is only one solution from the horrible scourge that is outside.   

Edited March 25 by IBatch

[Rindiculous]

12 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol is suter the reason why boeser had his 36 goals or miller have his 90 points? They were doing just fine without suter before. Just like hoglander have his 18 goals without garland. Garland with ep looked like crap at the beginning of the season. The garland ep hoglander line may look good the past 3 games but you also have to look at the teams they played. Calgary buffalo Montreal.. not exactly a tough team to play against. Calling them the catalyst of the line is a big stretch. So how did ep manage to get his 40+ points without the pp or garland? Who was cycling the puck? Ep never was and never will be a guy that create chances by cycling.. most of ep point from 5v5 have been from rushes shot and a rebound or tip ins.. you post is just literal backhand shot at EP. He’s basically carried by the team his entire career base on what you are saying. 

The definition of a catalyst is something that speeds up the reaction of two chemicals.  It is a perfect description of what Garland and Suter have been.  Sure the top lines scored points before, but each line has been so much more dominant with those two on the top two lines, than not.  Why did Garland and EP not work originally?  Because Garland had noone to work with.  Now he has Hoglander who can cycle it along the boards as well which makes that line work coherently.  Miller and Boeser, despite scoring, were getting caved in according to analytics before Suter.  Now they've shot up from about a 45% expected goals without him, to an absolutely crazy 70% expected goals with him.  And it's not just analytics, it's the eye test as well.  The Miller line is playing the best 5 v 5 hockey they've played the entire season since Suter became a fix on the line, and while it's only been a couple games, the Petey line already looks the best it has at 5 v 5 this season.  The only reason why our 5 on 5 play was so dominant previously, was because of the Joshua line before he got injured.  They were one of the best in the league, but both our other top lines were very mid.  Now we have two dominant top end lines, a solid third line, and a good fourth line.  And when Joshua gets back, it'll be interesting what they do to the lineup, seeing as Garland has found another home.

[wai_lai416]

34 minutes ago, Rindiculous said:

The definition of a catalyst is something that speeds up the reaction of two chemicals.  It is a perfect description of what Garland and Suter have been.  Sure the top lines scored points before, but each line has been so much more dominant with those two on the top two lines, than not.  Why did Garland and EP not work originally?  Because Garland had noone to work with.  Now he has Hoglander who can cycle it along the boards as well which makes that line work coherently.  Miller and Boeser, despite scoring, were getting caved in according to analytics before Suter.  Now they've shot up from about a 45% expected goals without him, to an absolutely crazy 70% expected goals with him.  And it's not just analytics, it's the eye test as well.  The Miller line is playing the best 5 v 5 hockey they've played the entire season since Suter became a fix on the line, and while it's only been a couple games, the Petey line already looks the best it has at 5 v 5 this season.  The only reason why our 5 on 5 play was so dominant previously, was because of the Joshua line before he got injured.  They were one of the best in the league, but both our other top lines were very mid.  Now we have two dominant top end lines, a solid third line, and a good fourth line.  And when Joshua gets back, it'll be interesting what they do to the lineup, seeing as Garland has found another home.

miller line have not looked more dominant with suter than it was before.. it's more miller took his game up a notch the last couple months more than suter being on the line. so according to you Garland have no one to work with even though he was playing with a 100 and 70+ point guy from last season.. and they are somehow getting points inspite of him in the early season.. then if that's the case then the line would be even more dominant if they take EP off and just have garland hoglander together with anyone else.. because according to you hoglander and ep have been trash prior to garland. EP and garland have been trash because garland have no one to play with.. so the common denominator is EP.. so therefore they would be even better if they get rid of EP on that line.

[Rindiculous]

8 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

miller line have not looked more dominant with suter than it was before.. it's more miller took his game up a notch the last couple months more than suter being on the line. so according to you Garland have no one to work with even though he was playing with a 100 and 70+ point guy from last season.. and they are somehow getting points inspite of him in the early season.. then if that's the case then the line would be even more dominant if they take EP off and just have garland hoglander together with anyone else.. because according to you hoglander and ep have been trash prior to garland. EP and garland have been trash because garland have no one to play with.. so the common denominator is EP.. so therefore they would be even better if they get rid of EP on that line.

No, I'm saying the line works with all 3.  Petey can play the middle of the ice and produce goals if his linemates can do the dirty work along the boards.  Petey and Hoglander had flashes, but it was in spite of the line because most of those flashes were Hoglander making power forward moves to create chances.  If you take Petey away and add say a Blueger, I'd say it would look a lot more like a slightly worse version of the third line we had because Bleuger is not as good a finisher as Petey is and Hoglander isn't quite as good along the boards as Joshua is (however, Hoglander does have much better hands and therefore can produce something out of nothing which Joshua can't).

 

I'm also not saying having Suter on the top line is the most ideal, but you need a Suter type player on the top line.  On the Canucks, we don't really have a substitute now that we don't have Pearson.  Tyler Toffoli could be a player like that, but when he was here, he wasn't really.  Kuzmenko surely was not.  Those guys are top 6 players, but don't necessarily have what it takes to be a catalyst to the top line.

 

Over my time of watching hockey I have learned that each good forward line needs to have two things...they need a duo, and then supplement them with a catalyst.  The catalyst is not a guy you usually notice as much on the ice as the other two players, but is just as vitally important to the success of the line.  With Miller and Boeser, it was Pearson, now it's Suter.  With the Sedins, it was Burrows.  With Garland and Joshua, it was Bleuger.  With Petey and Hoglander, it's now Garland.  If you talk about other teams, with Mcdavid and and Hyman it's Nugent-Hopkins.  With Mackinnon and Rantanen, it's Drouin.  With Hintz and Robertson, it's Johnston.  With Barkov and Reinhart, it's Verhague.  With Matthews and Nylander, it's Knies.  Every single good line has that dynamic going on.  How good that catalyst player is in a vacuum varies.  Like I wouldn't put guys like Knies, Suter, and Drouin on the same level as Verhague and Nugent-Hopkins, but they all fulfill the same vital roll.

[spook007]

Bambi the predator...

 

[IBatch]

16 hours ago, Rindiculous said:

No, I'm saying the line works with all 3.  Petey can play the middle of the ice and produce goals if his linemates can do the dirty work along the boards.  Petey and Hoglander had flashes, but it was in spite of the line because most of those flashes were Hoglander making power forward moves to create chances.  If you take Petey away and add say a Blueger, I'd say it would look a lot more like a slightly worse version of the third line we had because Bleuger is not as good a finisher as Petey is and Hoglander isn't quite as good along the boards as Joshua is (however, Hoglander does have much better hands and therefore can produce something out of nothing which Joshua can't).

 

I'm also not saying having Suter on the top line is the most ideal, but you need a Suter type player on the top line.  On the Canucks, we don't really have a substitute now that we don't have Pearson.  Tyler Toffoli could be a player like that, but when he was here, he wasn't really.  Kuzmenko surely was not.  Those guys are top 6 players, but don't necessarily have what it takes to be a catalyst to the top line.

 

Over my time of watching hockey I have learned that each good forward line needs to have two things...they need a duo, and then supplement them with a catalyst.  The catalyst is not a guy you usually notice as much on the ice as the other two players, but is just as vitally important to the success of the line.  With Miller and Boeser, it was Pearson, now it's Suter.  With the Sedins, it was Burrows.  With Garland and Joshua, it was Bleuger.  With Petey and Hoglander, it's now Garland.  If you talk about other teams, with Mcdavid and and Hyman it's Nugent-Hopkins.  With Mackinnon and Rantanen, it's Drouin.  With Hintz and Robertson, it's Johnston.  With Barkov and Reinhart, it's Verhague.  With Matthews and Nylander, it's Knies.  Every single good line has that dynamic going on.  How good that catalyst player is in a vacuum varies.  Like I wouldn't put guys like Knies, Suter, and Drouin on the same level as Verhague and Nugent-Hopkins, but they all fulfill the same vital roll.

Linden Ronning Courtnall.   Later Momesso Ronning Courtnall.     Naslund Morrison Bertuzzi.     Adams Linden Bure. 

 

Pearson Horvat LE

 

Id argue  Burrows was a huge benefit to the Sedins.   Not many guys (one year of Carter),  gelled with them.   Without Burrows, no Art Ross trophies,  and probably no HHOF either.  

 

Heatley Spezza Alfie...sometimes putting the best you've got (WCE as well) together, creates something special.    For a couple years, these guys were the best lines in hockey in the 2000's (early on and after the lockout).  

 

Thornton and Marleau.     

 

More often then not though, it goes in pairs like the Sedins, and the coaches work on creating magic with a pair, when the right guy is added, it goes to a completely different level.    

 

Allvin and JR said when they came in, that they were looking to find long term pairs.    Miller and Brock is one.   Don't think they've quite arrived at what to do with EPs line, but it's not like he's getting chopped liver either.    Same with Miller and Brock for their third guy.     Joshua and Garland appeared to be a pair, sure looked like that anyways with Bluegar.  

 

EP is starting to remind me a lot of Kovalev, minus the power game.   As in a mercurial elite skilled forward, that might be the most skilled guy in the league but has a tough time gelling with his linemates, or finding his pair.   That's ok too, EP is good enough to win games and have big moments more or less on his own...not like Bure was, but somewhat in the same mould.   A game breaker. 

 

Lindholm playing the 3C role is a huge boon.    It's also created a bit of a challenge for the coaching staff.   Joshua Bluegar Garland won us a lot of games.    We are going to need the bottom six to chip in come playoffs,  also going to need each line carry the load defensively if they aren't contributing on the scoreboard.  

 

Hogs could end up becoming EPs pair.     That would be huge  for the club. 

Edited March 26 by IBatch

[CanuckMan]

Suter should not be in the top 6 for whatever reason. He’s there simply because we don’t have enough top 6 forwards. 
Lineup once Joshua is back should be:

Podz-Miller-Boeser

Hoglander-Petterson-Garland

Joshua-Lindholm-Suter

Lafferty-Bluegar-Mikheyev

 

or reunite Joshua with Bluegar. 

[Ballisticsports]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Linden Ronning Courtnall.   Later Momesso Ronning Courtnall.     Naslund Morrison Bertuzzi.     Adams Linden Bure. 

 

Pearson Horvat LE

 

Id argue  Burrows was a huge benefit to the Sedins.   Not many guys (one year of Carter),  gelled with them.   Without Burrows, no Art Ross trophies,  and probably no HHOF either.  

 

Heatley Spezza Alfie...sometimes putting the best you've got (WCE as well) together, creates something special.    For a couple years, these guys were the best lines in hockey in the 2000's (early on and after the lockout).  

 

Thornton and Marleau.     

 

More often then not though, it goes in pairs like the Sedins, and the coaches work on creating magic with a pair, when the right guy is added, it goes to a completely different level.    

 

Allvin and JR said when they came in, that they were looking to find long term pairs.    Miller and Brock is one.   Don't think they've quite arrived at what to do with EPs line, but it's not like he's getting chopped liver either.    Same with Miller and Brock for their third guy.     Joshua and Garland appeared to be a pair, sure looked like that anyways with Bluegar.  

 

EP is starting to remind me a lot of Kovalev, minus the power game.   As in a mercurial elite skilled forward, that might be the most skilled guy in the league but has a tough time gelling with his linemates, or finding his pair.   That's ok too, EP is good enough to win games and have big moments more or less on his own...not like Bure was, but somewhat in the same mould.   A game breaker. 

 

Lindholm playing the 3C role is a huge boon.    It's also created a bit of a challenge for the coaching staff.   Joshua Bluegar Garland won us a lot of games.    We are going to need the bottom six to chip in come playoffs,  also going to need each line carry the load defensively if they aren't contributing on the scoreboard.  

 

Hogs could end up becoming EPs pair.     That would be huge  for the club. 

I have a feeling they may sell high on BB before he is a UFA and insert a ELC on the team though ?

[RJCF96]

In a perfect world, we would definitely like atleast 1 more top-6 winger (e.g. Toffoli or a NHL ready prospect from the farm like Dallas had with Stankoven). But we don't have one at this time. We will have to rely on chemistry, and player punching above their weight class. I have faith that we have a solid team, and we won't be a push-over in the playoffs.

[RJCF96]

I have a few thoughts for our line-up if/when we have all our forwards healthy. We do have some options/rotations:

 

Load up the Lotto Line:
Pettersson-Miller-Boeser
Hoglander-Lindholm-Mikheyev
Joshua-Blueger-Garland
Podkolzin-Suter-Lafferty

 

Swedish 'Mafia' Line:
Mikheyev-Miller-Boeser
Hoglander-Pettersson-Lindholm
Joshua-Blueger-Garland
Podkolzin-Suter-Lafferty

 

Spread out the offense/Centre Depth 1:
Mikheyev-Miller-Boeser
Hoglander-Pettersson-Garland
Joshua-Lindholm-Lafferty
Podkolzin-Blueger-Suter

 

Spread out the offense/Centre Depth 2:
Suter-Miller-Boeser
Hoglander-Pettersson-Garland
Mikheyev-Lindholm-Joshua
Podkolzin-Blueger-Lafferty

[CanuckMan]

I think one of the issues is that Lindholm was probably brought in to play in the top 6 and not as our third line C. It has to be is underlying injury that had brought us to that point and now he’s out entirely for who knows how long. Lindholm in our top 6 would still be a better option than Suter. Have Bluegar/Suter play 3c/4c. 

[Ballisticsports]

7 minutes ago, CanuckMan said:

I think one of the issues is that Lindholm was probably brought in to play in the top 6 and not as our third line C. It has to be is underlying injury that had brought us to that point and now he’s out entirely for who knows how long. Lindholm in our top 6 would still be a better option than Suter. Have Bluegar/Suter play 3c/4c. 

He also could have been in to be a back up if EP hadn't signed ?

I think he may be taking draws for EP when healthier (or playing 2nd line, if Lotto re-united)

 

He will help the tighter playoff games over Kuz (who wouldn't have been playing)

I think he may sign a 1 yr show me contract? (If he wants to stay) , and if he doesn't provide what the team wants for the price, they will still be ok to have Kuz $5.5 cap space free next year as another option

[CanuckMan]

10 hours ago, Ballisticsports said:

He also could have been in to be a back up if EP hadn't signed ?

I think he may be taking draws for EP when healthier (or playing 2nd line, if Lotto re-united)

 

He will help the tighter playoff games over Kuz (who wouldn't have been playing)

I think he may sign a 1 yr show me contract? (If he wants to stay) , and if he doesn't provide what the team wants for the price, they will still be ok to have Kuz $5.5 cap space free next year as another option

I think some team will offer him length on a contract so we wouldn’t get him for a 1 year contract. Personally I don’t think it’s a luxury we can afford with the raises coming this off season and the OEL cap hit increase