Logical Progression wrote:
Myers could have gotten more had he gone elsewhere so he did leave some money on the table. Not that he deserves more but not sure why the contract is being touted as ridiculously bad. I am not saying the cap hit may not come back to bite them, but it's not the worst contract in the world either and their D needed a complete overhaul based on what was available in the open market. Should they taken a pass on Myers and opted to go all in on Gardiner instead? Maybe but in reality they need both. So would need to find a home for the Eriksson or Sutter contracts. No easy task -- but Benning and Co. are in a mess of their own making so good luck fuckers.
Because he's the definition of a "meh" player. Statistically speaking, he's a traffic cone in the defensive zone. His offense is above average, but not earth-shattering, and he takes a team that IMO was too slow to begin with and makes them even slower. None of his plusses really offset his many minuses. Is it the worst contract in the world? No, but it's a lot of money and term for a mediocre blueliner to join Vancouver's growing pile of mediocre blueliners. The team would've been better off just keeping Hutton. At least he would've come cheap.
Right now I see the Canucks defensive corps as this:
One true impact player (Hughes)
One guy who is a shell of his former self, but that shell is still pretty good when healthy (Tanev)
A couple expensive fillers who leave a bit to be desired (Edler, Myers)
A young, but decent #4 guy who can play up in the lineup if needed...and it'll be needed (Stetcher)
Filler (Benn, Fantenberg)
The corps kinda reminds me of the Avs when they were in their rebuilding years when Tyson Barrie was just starting out and they had guys like Jan Hejda eating up big minutes. Awful? No. But that money could've been spent better elsewhere, or better yet, not spent at all. Maybe just admit you're rebuilding and move some of these parts for futures, like Tanev, however little return he may yield at this point.