[Trade] Lightning trade J.T. Miller to Canucks for Marek Mazanec, 2019 3rd-round pick, 2020 conditional 1st-round pick

[Alflives]

8 hours ago, peaches5 said:

You make absolutely no sense with your posts. I backed up what I said and provided evidence and you just continue to personal attack and pretend like you didn't see it. In hopes of what? You are the literal definition of a troll. 

How in the hell can a Canuck’s fan, who is defending/supporting their team, be a troll on a Canuck’s board?  Clearly you are only here to incite angry responses from Canuck’s fans.  

[crobar]

10 hours ago, peaches5 said:

You still haven't replied. I provided facts and evidence to back up my statements and you just upped your trolling. 

Havent you just repeated the words of an analyst that fit your theories and narratives, I think to call that fact and evidence is probably why your finding yourself getting bashed here.

[-DLC-]

On 1/25/2020 at 9:27 AM, peaches5 said:

The discussion was about the trade at the time of the of deal not how it's turned out based on the play of JT Miller. People kept were lauding this as a steal for The Canucks. I came in and pointed out how the hockey world not CDC not "my buddies" but the people who analyzed the trade were not saying what they are now - it turned into a great trade no doubt. The general consensus was The Canucks could have gotten more but they didn't want to risk losing out on JT. I repeated what was being said at the time and everyone here started attacking me. I never said the deal was bad I said it was a fair deal but The Canucks should have made it more lopsided. The way the deal is set up it could have turned sour for The Canucks and I posted a few minor tweaks, Tampa should have had no problem agreeing, which would have made the trade more favourable for Vancouver, and apparently now I am acting like an "expert".

 

Then I pointed out all the negatives of JT Miller and I remember Brisbois threw a little shade on JT Miller saying he wasn't part of the core and wasn't integral to the group. It was pretty clear Tampa wanted to offload JT Miller and The Canucks gave Tampa a pretty damn good deal. 

 

What people don't understand is at the time of the trade JT Miller was a third line player coming off a poor season. He also has a poor playoff record. 

 

 

 

 

I think the very important fact that you're ignoring is that ALL deals are assessed after the fact in relation to whether they were a hit or miss.  That they all have potential to be good or bad and that isn't decided on the spot.  Sure..people put out what they feel about it and project what will happen but it has to play out before it can be determined "good or bad".  The on the spot ratings are only good in the moment but the bars move as they play out and are proven.  The Magic Eight Ball gets shook up for the next one.

 

You talk about analysts in the hockey world...some of the same ones who put us at the bottom of the league.  They, like us, have nothing more than their projections and opinions on "how good" things are because that reveals itself afterward.  Picks included in that.  Sure, they study the game as "experts" but, honestly, are mostly just narrators.  "Commentators".

 

"Could have turned sour".   But "didn't".      A lot of what the "hockey world" analysts predict sours over time.

 

Pointing out negatives about JT are really just grasping at straws because to deny he's been a huge asset here is splitting hairs. 

 

Saying the Canucks "should have" made it more lopsided really misses the mark because they don't get to decide that.  Negotiating is a delicate balance of give and take and most do try to make it lopsided...then it becomes a matter of moving closer to the middle because you have TWO sides aiming to make it lopsided.  It's about poker hands and reading whether the other guys are going all in or folding.  Unless you are making the calls and attending the meetings, you have no idea how close or far the sides are ... but they often have to assess that. 

 

Not sure what it will take for you to move away from your stance of being right (because that is the basis your argument here)..but it's liberating to do so at times.  Consider it.   Especially if you were wrong about something negative and it actually was surprisingly better than you'd thought.  

 

How anyone can moan about Miller is mind boggling to me.  Why?  You suck all the joy out of it to try to pinpoint negatives that you were right on in life.  It's so much better to "learn" that you may have been wrong but that's ok.  That things turned out better than anticipated and that's something to focus forward on.

 

People who mourn picks do a disservice to the here and now of the game and the current roster that should be the focus.  Picks are for rosters in the future but we shouldn't overlook or discount the one that's rolling now and seems to have some good pieces in place, despite the x's and o's of how they got here.   He slid into place and had an immediate positive impact.  What's to argue about in that? 

 

Let's look at the fact that this was "worth" it.  You generally can't steal someone and you have to give to get...I suspect Miller was no secret but simply a casualty in a roster that he wasn't needed as badly in as some other teams.  If you're not utilizing an asset it isn't always a matter of not being a valuable one.

How important has Miller been to Petey?  What about the role he's playing WITH our first round picks?  They matter too....not just the one that got away.

[10pavelbure96]

Oh man this narrative. Tampa was cap strapped....

 

Who cares, the hockey world Analysts are just human and they are wrong 50% of the time anyway.

 

Bottom line is it was a good trade. For all anyone knows jb has been eyeing Miller for a long time and paid a premium to outbid anyone.

 

The Canucks are 1st in the Pacific.

 

All people do on here, Twitter, Facebook, is complain.

Edited January 26, 2020 by debluvscanucks

[Ghostsof1915]

Peaches5, you don't like the trade, or the deal. Fine. The rest us can agree to disagree. If Tampa uses the first as a trade chip or get a franchise player, so be it. 

Short term wise it's worked out pretty well. 

If Benning said no the best we are doing is a 2nd rounder, Tampa would mostly likely traded with someone else. 

 

I find it hilarious that for years I've seen on CDCers complain that Benning never tries for a "Bold Move". And when he does it, a certain segment of board goes ape. 

 

[peaches5]

51 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I think the very important fact that you're ignoring is that ALL deals are assessed after the fact in relation to whether they were a hit or miss.  That they all have potential to be good or bad and that isn't decided on the spot.  Sure..people put out what they feel about it and project what will happen but it has to play out before it can be determined "good or bad".  The on the spot ratings are only good in the moment but the bars move as they play out and are proven.  The Magic Eight Ball gets shook up for the next one.

 

You talk about analysts in the hockey world...some of the same ones who put us at the bottom of the league.  They, like us, have nothing more than their projections and opinions on "how good" things are because that reveals itself afterward.  Picks included in that.  Sure, they study the game as "experts" but, honestly, are mostly just narrators.  "Commentators".

 

"Could have turned sour".   But "didn't".      A lot of what the "hockey world" analysts predict sours over time.

 

Pointing out negatives about JT are really just grasping at straws because to deny he's been a huge asset here is splitting hairs. 

 

Saying the Canucks "should have" made it more lopsided really misses the mark because they don't get to decide that.  Negotiating is a delicate balance of give and take and most do try to make it lopsided...then it becomes a matter of moving closer to the middle because you have TWO sides aiming to make it lopsided.  It's about poker hands and reading whether the other guys are going all in or folding.  Unless you are making the calls and attending the meetings, you have no idea how close or far the sides are ... but they often have to assess that. 

 

Not sure what it will take for you to move away from your stance of being right (because that is the basis your argument here)..but it's liberating to do so at times.  Consider it.   Especially if you were wrong about something negative and it actually was surprisingly better than you'd thought.  

 

How anyone can moan about Miller is mind boggling to me.  Why?  You suck all the joy out of it to try to pinpoint negatives that you were right on in life.  It's so much better to "learn" that you may have been wrong but that's ok.  That things turned out better than anticipated and that's something to focus forward on.

 

People who mourn picks do a disservice to the here and now of the game and the current roster that should be the focus.  Picks are for rosters in the future but we shouldn't overlook or discount the one that's rolling now and seems to have some good pieces in place, despite the x's and o's of how they got here.   He slid into place and had an immediate positive impact.  What's to argue about in that? 

 

Let's look at the fact that this was "worth" it.  You generally can't steal someone and you have to give to get...I suspect Miller was no secret but simply a casualty in a roster that he wasn't needed as badly in as some other teams.  If you're not utilizing an asset it isn't always a matter of not being a valuable one.

How important has Miller been to Petey?  What about the role he's playing WITH our first round picks?  They matter too....not just the one that got away.

First off you don't even understand what was being discussed. You're just doing what the majority of people here are doing and going oh you're ragging on JT Miller and JB. I am actually the one person how unbiasedly looked at the trade and called it what it was a fair trade. I then said based on what Tampa agreed to the trade was poorly contrived in the part of how the first round pick was protected. A small change to it, which would benefit both teams, would have made it a much better deal for Vancouver. That was JB could have lottery protected the pick, which he said he did, but not really, if The Canucks miss the playoffs they can choose to defer or keep the pick. I'll explain more clearly so everyone can understand if The Canucks missed the playoffs and came 7th they could give that pick to Tampa or defer which Tampa could get a lottery pick in that deferred year or Tampa could get the 7th pick. If the Canucks come 15th this year instead of being able to defer that pick to Tampa now they have to keep that pick and the pick next year goes to Tampa which could be a lottery pick. if the Canucks come 12-15th this year and lose the lottery it makes more sense to send that pick to Tampa. If they made the playoffs Tampa would get a worse pick. It doesn't make much sense why Tampa wouldn't agree to that. Apparently, using common sense here makes me an "expert".

 

When the trade was made there was a consensus around it, among the hockey world, not CDC, not by buddies, was the trade could come back to bite Vancouver. It was a fair deal, as I have said many times, but could Vancouver have given less? As I alluded to Vancouver just decided they wanted JT Miller, again this is not "my opinion" this was what was being said by NHL insiders, reporters etc, and were willing to pay the high asking price. I backed up my statements with an article written right after the trade by Ian Macintyre. Where he goes on to say if Vancouver misses the playoffs this does not look like a good trade. It shows that the value of JT Miller is not what people here are peddling pre this breakout season. Then instead of responding to it all the personal attacks started which it's your job to deal.  No one, nor am I, is disputing that when you look at the trade in hindsight, it turned into a great trade. You can't effectively judge a trade by the outcome down the line. If you traded for a Crosby and gave up a first round pick and then Crosby broke his leg and never played for The Canucks.. That's not bad trade it's a great trade that turned unfortunate. You'd do that trade 100 times over.

 

Everything I posted were points as to why JT Millers value was not this top-line player or a bonified top 6 forward. It wasn't attacking JT Miller or the year he is having. The outcome of the trade was extremely positive but if it wasn't the trade would be viewed completely different. Trade value at the time of the trade is most important. If you look at it from both sides each team got what they were looking for. There a NTC kicking in for JT Miller, Brisebois had said he wasn't fitting in and was not part of the core. JT Miller was being shopped, he needed to be moved quickly, he was coming off a poor year and poor playoffs, he was playing on the 3rd line - all these things have been completely disregarded. There were definite negatives surrounding JT which is why his was low and but The Canucks were thought to have paid a pretty steep price. I am okay with that price if it wasn't a high-end draft pick. If JT turned into a third-line player and we paid mid-first for that I'd be okay with it. A lot of very positive things happened this year which benefited this trade - you can't include these things in determining how good the trade was. 

 

Again, The topic of discussion was how the trade, at the time of the trade, was viewed not how it's turned out. A lot of people thought we would miss the playoffs I said that as well and apparently no one was predicting that when I was also stating that the consensus was we'd suck this year. Apparently, that wasn't what the hockey world was saying and just my buddies too. If you actually read what I said you'd see that nothing I said was made up and I sparingly used my own opinion which was largely common sense. 

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

Why are we assuming that Tampa would have accepted anything less? Sure, they had cap issues. They also had an entire offseason to work with and a glut of movable assets. This idea that they were desperate is so overblown. 

[DeNiro]

7 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Why are we assuming that Tampa would have accepted anything less? Sure, they had cap issues. They also had an entire offseason to work with and a glut of movable assets. This idea that they were desperate is so overblown. 

Nope Benning obviously didn’t even negotiate.

 

Before Brisebois could even finish saying he wanted a 2nd round pick Benning was offering up his 1st. 
 

I heard he even offered up another 1st round pick but Brisebois declined because he felt sorry for him. 

[Off_The_Schneid!]

What we paid for J.T. Miller is equivalent to what you would pay for a rental UFA at the deadline 

 

a late 1st and a 3rd 

 

the fact that he has 3 more years left at a ridiculously low cap hit makes this trade a home run 

[oldnews]

5 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Why are we assuming that Tampa would have accepted anything less? Sure, they had cap issues. They also had an entire offseason to work with and a glut of movable assets. This idea that they were desperate is so overblown. 

exactly.

they'd just gotten the freebie/gift of Callahan's retirement (5.8 million).

Stralman (4.5) , Coburn (3.7) and Girardi (3.0) were all expiring.  Coburn later took an over 2 million cut to 1.7.

And they had many secondary players they easily could have 'dumped' (for modest to good returns) - from Johnson, to Killorn, to Palat, to Gourde - all of whom were .5ppg players (or better).

One of the most obtuse 'debates' this market has ever overblown, and regardless of Tampa's cap situation, there is literally nothing defensible about the absurd claim he was a "cap dump". 

[-DLC-]

40 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

First off you don't even understand what was being discussed. You're just doing what the majority of people here are doing and going oh you're ragging on JT Miller and JB. I am actually the one person how unbiasedly looked at the trade and called it what it was a fair trade. I then said based on what Tampa agreed to the trade was poorly contrived in the part of how the first round pick was protected. A small change to it, which would benefit both teams, would have made it a much better deal for Vancouver. That was JB could have lottery protected the pick, which he said he did, but not really, if The Canucks miss the playoffs they can choose to defer or keep the pick. I'll explain more clearly so everyone can understand if The Canucks missed the playoffs and came 7th they could give that pick to Tampa or defer which Tampa could get a lottery pick in that deferred year or Tampa could get the 7th pick. If the Canucks come 15th this year instead of being able to defer that pick to Tampa now they have to keep that pick and the pick next year goes to Tampa which could be a lottery pick. if the Canucks come 12-15th this year and lose the lottery it makes more sense to send that pick to Tampa. If they made the playoffs Tampa would get a worse pick. It doesn't make much sense why Tampa wouldn't agree to that. Apparently, using common sense here makes me an "expert".

 

When the trade was made there was a consensus around it, among the hockey world, not CDC, not by buddies, was the trade could come back to bite Vancouver. It was a fair deal, as I have said many times, but could Vancouver have given less? As I alluded to Vancouver just decided they wanted JT Miller, again this is not "my opinion" this was what was being said by NHL insiders, reporters etc, and were willing to pay the high asking price. I backed up my statements with an article written right after the trade by Ian Macintyre. Where he goes on to say if Vancouver misses the playoffs this does not look like a good trade. It shows that the value of JT Miller is not what people here are peddling pre this breakout season. Then instead of responding to it all the personal attacks started which it's your job to deal.  No one, nor am I, is disputing that when you look at the trade in hindsight, it turned into a great trade. You can't effectively judge a trade by the outcome down the line. If you traded for a Crosby and gave up a first round pick and then Crosby broke his leg and never played for The Canucks.. That's not bad trade it's a great trade that turned unfortunate. You'd do that trade 100 times over.

 

Everything I posted were points as to why JT Millers value was not this top-line player or a bonified top 6 forward. It wasn't attacking JT Miller or the year he is having. The outcome of the trade was extremely positive but if it wasn't the trade would be viewed completely different. Trade value at the time of the trade is most important. If you look at it from both sides each team got what they were looking for. There a NTC kicking in for JT Miller, Brisebois had said he wasn't fitting in and was not part of the core. JT Miller was being shopped, he needed to be moved quickly, he was coming off a poor year and poor playoffs, he was playing on the 3rd line - all these things have been completely disregarded. There were definite negatives surrounding JT which is why his was low and but The Canucks were thought to have paid a pretty steep price. I am okay with that price if it wasn't a high-end draft pick. If JT turned into a third-line player and we paid mid-first for that I'd be okay with it. A lot of very positive things happened this year which benefited this trade - you can't include these things in determining how good the trade was. 

 

Again, The topic of discussion was how the trade, at the time of the trade, was viewed not how it's turned out. A lot of people thought we would miss the playoffs I said that as well and apparently no one was predicting that when I was also stating that the consensus was we'd suck this year. Apparently, that wasn't what the hockey world was saying and just my buddies too. If you actually read what I said you'd see that nothing I said was made up and I sparingly used my own opinion which was largely common sense. 

 

"But if it wasn't".  But it was. That's my point...roll of the dice and sometimes it plays out in your favour, sometimes it doesn't.  Doesn't mean you don't take a chance if you feel there's value there - value FOR YOU, not as determined by what everyone else has set the bar at.  Based on that, sometimes you even overpay because that's the nature of this beast.  So to label "good or bad" is pretty much irrelevant after the fact.  Done..water under the bridge...despite who called it or why.  That's what we're trying to get to here.  Not sure what it matters because it's a done deal.  And most are quite happy to move forward and not dwell on the past.  Our team deserves that.

 

A player/pick's value is only worth what it's seen as to the people involved in the trade...the rest doesn't matter.  It's ego that says "aha, see...told you".  But for every told you so there's likely a "wow, didn't see that coming" too so it balances out in the end.  

 

Re:  personal attacks?  Report them and we'll review.

 

Just not sure what sort of validation you're seeking here?  It's kind of a long, dragged out deal and to expect people to go back in time and read from the beginning in order to understand your point?   I want the condensed/current version. And that may be your first clue that it might be hanging on to something too long...if it requires that sort of "commitment" to respond to your posts.

 

In a nutshell/one or two lines...what is it you'd like me to know about JT Miller and a deal made in the past and why?  What does it matter in the here and now?

[oldnews]

16 hours ago, peaches5 said:

Your entire analysis is completely bias and designed to push your narrative. Anything that doesn't fit your narrative is disregarded. 

complete bias or completely biased?

 

that's because all the facts support my analysis....  

ie. I actually bothered to do the work of looking at them.  anything that doesn't fit my narrative is not factual

[-DLC-]

I guess part of it (as I'm trying to be fair and understand your point) is that you send really mixed messages to try to support the fact that you're right.

 

Quote

I am actually the one person how unbiasedly looked at the trade and called it what it was a fair trade. 

If it's a fair trade, what the heck are all the other keystrokes about?  Because you go on to explain why it wasn't.  So maybe pick a side.

[peaches5]

10 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

"But if it wasn't".  But it was. That's my point...roll of the dice and sometimes it plays out in your favour, sometimes it doesn't.  Doesn't mean you don't take a chance if you feel there's value there - value FOR YOU, not as determined by what everyone else has set the bar at.  Based on that, sometimes you even overpay because that's the nature of this beast.  So to label "good or bad" is pretty much irrelevant after the fact.  Done..water under the bridge...despite who called it or why.  That's what we're trying to get to here.  Not sure what it matters because it's a done deal.  And most are quite happy to move forward and not dwell on the past.  Our team deserves that.

 

A player/pick's value is only worth what it's seen as to the people involved in the trade...the rest doesn't matter.  It's ego that says "aha, see...told you".  But for every told you so there's likely a "wow, didn't see that coming" too so it balances out in the end.  

 

Re:  personal attacks?  Report them and we'll review.

 

Just not sure what sort of validation you're seeking here?  It's kind of a long, dragged out deal and to expect people to go back in time and read from the beginning in order to understand your point?   I want the condensed/current version. And that may be your first clue that it might be hanging on to something too long...if it requires that sort of "commitment" to respond to your posts.

 

In a nutshell/one or two lines...what is it you'd like me to know about JT Miller and a deal made in the past and why?  What does it matter in the here and now?

I didn't say you don't take that chance. What I alluded to is it doesn't change the probability of the outcome. You can't look back and go oh this is an amazing trade after you know the outcome. You look back and you can say it was a fair trade with a great outcome. It could have been a fair trade with a poor outcome. Some minute changes I feel would have diminished those poor outcomes. 

 

That's because people just deflect and personally attack any opinion they don't like and demand people who go against their and their peers opinion must leave. 

[-DLC-]

5 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

I didn't say you don't take that chance. What I alluded to is it doesn't change the probability of the outcome. You can't look back and go oh this is an amazing trade after you know the outcome. You look back and you can say it was a fair trade with a great outcome. It could have been a fair trade with a poor outcome. Some minute changes I feel would have diminished those poor outcomes. 

 

That's because people just deflect and personally attack any opinion they don't like and demand people who go against their and their peers opinion must leave. 

This is all nonsense...of COURSE you can say it was a good trade after the fact.  Because no one knows how things will turn out but, if they do, then it was a good move.  If they don't, it wasn't.  Doesn't matter if that's based on skill, luck...whatever.

 

What "poor outcome" are you referring to?   And what changes would have diminished them?

 

That last line is garbage...just because people aren't buying in to what you're saying.  I haven't personally attacked you OR said you must leave.  So let's answer my posts directly rather than generalize.

 

You're actually deflecting right now.  Simple answers to my second line...in the hopes I do get to understand what point you're trying to make in all of this.  Right now,  it seems like it's trying to bash me over the head with "I was right all along".   If you were, awesome...then we agree that the trade was a success because Miller has been for us.  Keeping it simple here.

[peaches5]

17 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I guess part of it (as I'm trying to be fair and understand your point) is that you send really mixed messages to try to support the fact that you're right.

 

If it's a fair trade, what the heck are all the other keystrokes about?  Because you go on to explain why it wasn't.  So maybe pick a side.

The whole point of this discussion was it was a fair trade, or overpayment - depending on how was posting, and not this huge lopsided trade on behalf of Vancouver. Which people here are pedaling and pointing that out causes them to lash out and ridicule you. People here just see one person and then start spewing nonsense that had nothing to do with what was originally being discussed. Anytime, someone tried to point that out they were attacked. You'll notice when I posted an article written by Ian Macintyre that showed what was being said about the trade when it happened no one responded to it instead they resorted to personal attacks and trolling.

Edited January 26, 2020 by peaches5

[peaches5]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

This is all nonsense...of COURSE you can say it was a good trade after the fact.  

 

What "poor outcome" are you referring to.   And what changes would have diminished them?

 

That last line is garbage...just because people aren't buying in to what you're saying.  I haven't personally attacked you OR said you must leave.  So let's answer my posts directly rather than generalize.

 

You're actually deflecting right now.  Simple answers to my second line...in the hopes I do get to understand what point you're trying to make in all of this.  Right now,  it seems like it's trying to bash me over the head with "I was right all along".   If you were, awesome...then we agree that the trade was a success because Miller has been for us.  Keeping it simple here.

The entire discussion was what the consensus of the trade was when it happened and no one was calling this a huge win for Vancouver. What part of that do you not understand? I backed up everything to show that prior to this season the Value of JT Miller was nothing close to what people here keep pedaling.

[Kanukfanatic]

1 hour ago, peaches5 said:

First off you don't even understand what was being discussed.

I am actually the one person how unbiasedly looked at the trade and called it what it was a fair trade

 

You ain't that special pal if you actually believe you are the only one that understands things or are the only one that does anything.  What a joke....

 

[-DLC-]

7 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

The entire discussion was what the consensus of the trade was when it happened and no one was calling this a huge win for Vancouver. What part of that do you not understand? I backed up everything to show that prior to this season the Value of JT Miller was nothing close to what people here keep pedaling.

Maybe it's you who's not understanding...the point of this has moving goalposts.  Before, during, after the trade all factor in.  Not just honing in on "the trade".

 

I explained that "the value" isn't something you, me, hockey experts can set for a team...a team determines the value of someone based on their needs assessment and situation in the moment.  Not just on stats and figures.  That also changes from team to team and moment to moment.  It's dynamic, not static.  So a value that one team places on something may be different than another team (which is, in fact, what happened here).

 

So you can't cite the value (of Miller) in a general way...he was more valuable to the Canucks than he was to Tampa...that's all.

 

You're using hockey experts who, quite often, are wrong.  Especially when it comes to the Canucks.

 

 

[peaches5]

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

Maybe it's you who's not understanding...the point of this has moving goalposts.  Before, during, after the trade all factor in.  Not just honing in on "the trade".

 

I explained that "the value" isn't something you set...a team determines the value of someone based on their needs assessment and situation.  That changes from team to team and moment to moment.  It's dynamic, not static.

 

So you can't cite the value for the team...you're using hockey experts to do so and, quite often, they're wrong.

 

 

You cannot cite all the positive outcomes and then use this as a formula as determining value of a trade. You have to include negative possible outcomes as well or that formula is completely worthless. 

 

As I said Tampa got the picks they wanted and cap relief. Vancouver got the potential top 6 forwarded they wanted. There were risks involved so overall the trade is pretty fair. Tampa had to make a move, Vancouver did not.