CaptainLinden16

Gavrikov plays 21 minutes per night. Skates very well, smooth with the puck, hits. He is a very good player. It would be useful to have a LHD that can take defensive minutes to allow Ekman Larsson to play a little more Oh fence!

Boeser 1st round pick Jack Rathbone Travis Poolman Jason Dickinson for Adam Boqvist Valdisalv Gavrikov Max Domi I think its fair. Gets a young RHD, Gavrikov maybe even the best player in the trade and it clears cap. Poolman and Dickinson are solid and cheap not old for a Columbus team that is under the cap consistently. Rathbone, 1st and Boeser is a haul. If we have to throw in a 2nd round pick or Klimovich or whatever then I say do it. Domi Horvat Garland (those two are so feisty hopefully it will wake Horvat up) Pearson Miller Chiasson (not awesomebut a very balanced team overall) Hoglander Petterson Podkolzin Highmore Lammiko Motte Hughes Schenn/Hamonic Ekman-Larsson Myers Gavrikov Boqvist Three very balanced pairs.

based off his hit totals, and just watching him play he doesn't really get anywhere near the boards on most nights. That's fine as he has to protect the middle of the ice, but Henrik would live behind the net. I do find it strange that he spent so much time making himself a better skater as that was the knock out of the draft that he seems to now think he is Nathan McKinnon light. You see it when he has confidence in his game. He loves trying to take it coast to coast. Why not try to make your game more well rounded? He does need to reflect on and try to diversify his offensive game. He is a very talented hockey player, and he is limiting himself unnecessarily Otherwise, the team is just miscasting him. He needs to be put in a shutdown role and told to focus on that. He will still generate plenty of offense of the rush and on the PP. That means taking Lammy's spot which is a bummer for Lammy, but it makes more sense for the overall team. Garland is such a crafty player. He needs someone who thinks and moves like he does in the offensive zone. Petterson, Miller and Boeser are all primarily shooters who are wasted by a center who wants to shoot himself most of the time.

Bo is best off the counter. He is best in Lammy's spot playing with Motte and Highmore. He really doesn't move well offensively in the zone, but he is great off the rush. A better verison of Sven Baertschi would be nice too. A quick to fast playmaking winger who can pass really well.

I don't want to trade miller because a trade for miller is a trade for futures. That have a low probability of panning out. Its not that I prefer Miller that's not even really the case. Its that the return for Petey could improve now the team while a return for Miller may or may not improve the team in the future (with more of an emphasis on may not). 24 year old Barzal is not being traded for a 28 year old Miller. The possibilities are greater for a Petey trade. Barzal won the fastest skater in the All-Star game skills competition competing against McDavid. If you get a chance to watch him play, he is insane fast with very good hands. Think of this way Petey is a very good shooter who plays really well in tight spaces. Barzal is a flyer who takes it coast to coast. He operates best in space. He creates space with his wheels. If you categorically wont consider and option like that then lets build around Petey and add some real heavy bodies that can cycle on the boards win pucks in the zone and allow Petey to use his shot and his handling in tight. Petey and Boeser are redundant. Miller to a certain extent is a similar player as well. Heck Horvat and Pearson are shoot first hockey players as well. There just isn't really a player who can carry the puck with speed. On the other hand; Horvat doesn't want to bang, Boeser never did, Petey is too light to do it. There is not forecheck and cycle in their game that would create space for a shooter to find an open spot and wait for a puck to come. We essentially have a bunch of guys who can shoot the puck really well but never find themselves open because spacing is too tight defensively. No one is creating space with their wheels or their bodies. Just bunch of guys sitting around waiting for a one timer. You then need to trade Boeser, Horvat or whatever... for a Brady Tkachuk type. Again, Miller is too old for someone to give you a under 25 power forward. Here in lies the conundrum. You can't trade Miller for what this team needs. So why trade the guy when you can't improve the team? This team doesn't use speed, passing or physicality to gain the zone (by this I mean they don't do any of those things well except for the Motte line). It does posses a lot of great shooters. I would argue that all of their shooting percentages would be significantly higher and they would generate more shots with a proper playmaker. Give a shooter and get a playmaker (preferably with wheels) or a power forward.

I am not proposing that we need to trade him. Its that if the roster is unbalanced and there are needs to address. He is what another team would covet. What about Petey for Barzal? Would the Islanders do that? The team lacks speed. Zone entries, especially on powerplays, is a huge issue. Barzal would solve this problem. He is also more of a playmaking center while Petey is more of shoot first center. This type of fair trade would improve the overall balance and ability of the team. Yes, it hurts to give up such a promising player, but the team should be overall better after a trade like that. They are close in age, both teams are underperforming, and maybe this would be a good shakeup for both to improve the overall rosters. This is what I mean by a hockey trade. Not a trade for futures, but a deal that adjusts the composition of the team to improve it overall. Hockey games aren't won an lost because you give every player an overall rating them combine them together and divide them by the roster size to get an average rating that allows you to win if your average rating is higher than that of the opposition. Teams have styles, strategies and tactics which are optimized by the right personnel. The powerplay is a joke despite the offensive talent on the team because they simply can't enter the zone. They don't have the bodies to retrieve pucks (dump it in), and they don't have the speed to just skate it in. There is enough talent on the team offensively to have a top 10 powerplay except for the most crucial part that they can't even get in the zone. Once setup they are quite effective. That would easily make them a playoff team. The same can be said 5 on 5. Their passing and movement is not fast enough on its own. They don't have the bodies to dump and chase (although the Motte line does this well because of their overall speed). Horvat and Miller have some ability to carry it from deep, but that doesn't seem to be the game plan. They also aren't really at that level speed wise. There are some really good players on this team. Its just that they don't really work well together. They need a playmaking 1st line center. They need more speed, and they need a top pairing RHD and consistent partner to Quinn Hughes. It's not impossible to rearrange the furniture to make that happen. Trading someone like Miller for futures accomplish none of those things now. Just leads to further frustration with this group, and probably leads to a decline in performance which will depress "asset values of the remaining roster."

Trading picks for NHL ready talent actually pays off really well. Ala Miller himself. Top 10 picks are another matter. The probability of that being someone of high quailty is substantial but not guaranteed. I am not saying Seider, Dobson or Drysdale are getting traded. I am just saying Detroit, NYI and Anaheim bubble playoff teams are not trading those type of players for older players. Your best bet at getting someone like that is by giving up a younger quality forward. It broadens your pool of trade partners. Petey has not contributed much to the team winning this year. You can't categorically say that the team wouldn't be significantly improved with Dobson on the team. The depth chart for forwards is a lot different than that of RHD. Boudreau proved this in a big way. This team isn't a flaming pile of poop. It just needs to be reconfigured. More speed and a RHD. What impact would a legitimate 1RHD have on Hughes? Would this compliment the roster better? Would the PK improve? Would Hughes be able to play even more? These dynamics are uncertain as they are untried. Why is this not as legitimate of an idea as trading Miller for something that may add to the roster in the future? I am just asking you to consider another possibility here. I am not saying I am right, but I think that is certainly worth trying more than trading for a sack of magic beans.

What sacrifice? The whole point of trading one of them is to adjust the roster to create a more complimentary core team. I honestly don't think you understand what I am saying here at all. I think you are simply thinking lets sell Miller because he is older for young lotto tickets in the hope that one of them ends up better than Miller so then you have a net positive impact on the roster. This is where the fundamental misunderstanding lies. Fine useless is hyperbole. Carlo isn't being traded. You are choosing to debate semantics over substance. The point is that any trade involving Miller will be quantity for quality. The hope is that quantity turns into quality. This is statically speaking a false hope. The casino loves it when you play roulette all day. Of course you can win big, but their odds of winning on each spin is fixed and better than 50%. That means in the long run they win the longer and the more you play. This is the same like trading Miller. Yes you can win, but if you make a quantity for quality trade 1000 times you will loose in aggregate. That means that taking the decision to spin the wheel even once is a dumb one. The same applies for the lotto or whatever else. In your own assessment of the window 2-7 years. Miller is likely to be good for 4-5 of those years. What are the odds that what you are getting back is going to be better than that.

You are right Miller is the easiest trade but whats coming back is going to be useless. So go ahead and make the easy trade. So I guess, I am a fan; and you are an NHL exec...if only life was this way, you could prefectly time everything. Your late first round pick and Lysell are barely cracking the NHL roster in that window if they even make it. They are entering their prime's after the 7 year mark. So go fish... It makes perfect sense for all teams to be interested in a young good player like Horvat, Petey and Boeser. It broadens your pool of trade partners. You can trade one of them for a different type of player that may compliment the roster better. Hence easier to make a hockey trade and not some asset management nonsense. I am confused why you are confused on this point.

Lysell is a small forward who is playing junior hockey. You mentioned a 1st and 2nd as well. Thats all 2-4 years away. Debrusk is a "cap dump" in your own words. The only real player coming back is Carlo, a player whom I don't believe the Bruins would ever move as it blows up the balance of the team. It's easier to trade someone else in a hockey trade rather than trading Miller. If Miller is a point per game for 4 more years on his new contract, I don't really care what his contract is. I know that is an if, but we cant assume he is instantly falling off a cliff. Boeser, Horvat or Petey age makes it easier to do a hockey trade to rebalance the roster.

Its easier to make a hockey trade with a Boeser, Horvat or Petey because of their age. You trade one of them for a Dobson, Seider, Drysdale or something like that. Miller almost certainly if traded will be trade for a 1st, 2nd, b prospect x 2. Just a bunch of gibirish.... Its important to improve the overall team, by shifting talent to construct the best possible team.

That Boston trade is the definition of asset management silliness. That all maybe equates. But what are we really talking about outside of Carlo. Even then why would a team heading into the playoffs trade a large defenseman playing 20 minutes a night and 2nd on the time in TOI. Maybe you are fixing your scoring issues but then you are creating a brand new problem simultaneously. This is what I mean. You are going to get offers like late 1st, 2nd, Lysell for Miller. Quantity...lots of quantity...Maybe it balances out, but it certainly wont make the team better. It will deflate the room massively to loose your best player for something that will show up MAYBE on the roster in 2-4 years. By that point your NHL career maybe over...

Carrier is 5'11 174 pound defenseman. Not awesome for this team. The 1st is a late first. Prokup isn't in the NHL although intriguing. Tomasino is in the show young. That's a lot of quantity again. You have to get something really really solid for your best player. Something that can play now effectively.

If Schnieder isn't Chris Pronger light then this looks pretty bad. Chytil has 200 games in the NHL, and he so far has only achieved 14 goals. Very Jake Virtanenny...not saying they are the same players, but he is certainly way off on getting close to Millers level. 200 games is a decent amount to get some kind of an idea of what type of player you are going to be. The first is a late first. The odds on that are terrible. This trade puts a lot of pressure on Schnieder being a really good player; otherwise its an ugly loss. The fact he is a defensive defensman and RHD is what is needed, but it will also add more pressure on him as he will never really be able to show big offensive numbers that make fans feel like he is a top player and not Erik Gudbrandson. It wont be obvious to the average fan that he is worth the trade. That puts pressure on management right from the start.

Colorado I assume you mean something like Newhook and Byram. That would be a great deal but from a team building standpoint a big bust. Another LHD offensive player. Newhook also seems more redundant than complimentary. Great young talents no doubt, but we aren't building a better team. Carolina I am not sure who they would trade off their NHL roster for Miller. I would be very reluctant to trade a player like Miller for players not even in the NHL. They don't have a 1st round pick this year. So I am not sure what you mean.... NYR seems like the only viable option for a solid trade right now. What if they don't really see Miller as that piece to get them over the top?

The draft is when teams are their most aspirational. Thats when a non-playoff team decides to commit to trying to make it the next year. Thats the trading partner we want. Someone with some really solid young players. Trade deadline buyers only have late firsts. The predominantly only have B prospects. As again they are built to win now. So the time period dictates the type of assets that are available. Now if someone like the Rangers wants to trade a Kakko who maybe like Bertuzzi or even Miller (Late bloomer) or Lafrienere who just needs to play a lot of minutes and be the man then its go time. There just aren't a lot of these type of players on really good teams. This makes a trade really difficult this season. He is in his prime now. That narrows what types of teams are going to after him.

The percentages are significantly lower for 4th round picks, but I am sure you know that and its just a joke. We are talking about 1% or so. 32 picks in the 4th round every year. You should find a Miller esque player every 3 drafts or so. That doesn't bode well for trading our Luke Schenns. Going back to the human factor. I think one of the biggest subtle mistakes management made was letting go of Luke Schenn to Tampa. He won two cups there and was clearly well liked and performed well. He also was very good with Quinn Hughes. He is absolutely a team first character guy. A 4th round pick is probably fair asset value for someone like him. His value will very soon be zero as he is an older veteran player who could pop off at any moment really. He is already quite slow. But when he hits 5+ guys in a game, the lift in the team is noticeable. Maybe a player like this allows the younger guys to have more freedom and less fear in their game. Maybe managing the asset isn't worth it. The main problem with a Miller trade is that a contender is going to want him at this stage in the season. Contenders don't typically have a lot of a grade NHL ready prospects and top 10 picks because they are built to win now. If we have to trade him, it is better in the off-season when an aspiring team that wants to jump to the next level is willing to make a trade offering an 8th overall and A grade NHL ready prospect. So if we are committed to trading him now then we are inevitably going to get quantity over quality which is always bad news. To address your post, most asset managers are terrified of loosing him for "nothing." So they are itching to make a deal...That is the mentality that I am afraid of. If he walks in 1.5 years, we still have potential received more value than a 25th overall and two AHL players that are a .75pts per game.

That is precisely what asset management is. That's precisely what the thought process is. Lets get something now while he has maximum value regardless of the actual outcome as he will eventually be worth zero. The secret is that everyone is eventually zero as no one is still playing NHL hockey indefinitely. The unquantifiable value (winning, development, etc...) of retaining the player is worth something. The value of Miller for 1.5 years is not equal to zero. I have no idea what the probability of him resigning is, but that also has some value. Asset management is all about keeping the balance sheet positive regardless of the team building aspect. This is the same approach as drafting best player available rather than positional need. JT Millers own draft year had 7 players (including himself) having equal or better career point totals than him. All of which were drafted in the top 8. 7/30 = 23%. You have a 23% chance of replacing Miller with a random 1st round pick in his own draft. You have a 0% chance with a pick 20-30 (0/10). So you could have traded Miller for 10 1st round picks from cup contending teams and came up with players of a significant lower quality than Miller. This is crucially important. The 2011 draft isn't even representative of the average draft. If we are talking about the 2012 draft, Flip Forsberg is the only player with higher point total than Miller. That's a 1/30 or 3% chance! A 3% chance! Someone could crunch the numbers but I would assume it's probably closer to 12-16%. That's not very good. Two 1st round picks would be considered a haul, by most, for Miller that's at best a 32% chance. Yikes! I am trying to draw the rarity of having a player of this high a quality. He isn't 35. We shouldn't be playing hot potato. One last thought, he is a bit of a late bloomer as his productivity curve is still arcing upwards which is not the case with all of the players ahead of him. This undoubtedly makes him a better player than even some who have more careers points which would lower the percentages further.

This will be my last attempt. There is an over emphasis on asset management in the dialogues on these forums. Inevitably more than one variable must be considered. Contract term and length are part of that. You have no idea whether or not Miller will be here after his contract expires( if it even gets to that point) neither do I. You assert opinions not facts. The logic is not plain wrong that we likely wont get Miller back in a trade. The odds are heavy against that. I get the sentiment well we should try our best to make it happen. Basic understanding of mathematics and statistics will make it plain that any trade for futures leads to a low probability of obtaining a player like Miller in the future. That doesn't mean its not possible. It is simply improbable. Again, I get the sentiment that something is better than nothing. I am not arguing that every players contract should be allowed to expire without receiving anything return. Its that it is better to make a hockey trade if possible. Not a trade for futures. It wouldn't be difficult to cherry pick draft picks from the last 10 years in the first round and construct a team of high quality NHL players. It also wouldn't be difficult, easier in fact, to construct a team of non-NHL players with 1st round draft picks in the last 10 years. There are 32 teams full of highly skilled professional scouting personnel spending all of their time assessing these players. They don't do it in-between their day jobs at Microsoft or the Subway. That's all they do. They get it wrong a lot. Like a lot a lot... Here comes the main point. When you have a top 50 player in the NHL, you don't trade them just to manage the cap or their contract length or whatever other asset management technique. They are essentially irreplaceable. The difficulty in obtaining another one is very high. I know that means potentially being a mediocre team as they win you enough games to maybe sneak into the playoffs but not enough to win the cup. That is frustrating. There is no sure fire fix for this. You can't stockpile 7th round picks by trading Matthew Highmore's and 3rd round picks by trading Luke Schenn's and tanking for a 1st overall and guarantee yourself a contender for the cup. You can't asset manage your way to the cup. You have to build a team. You have to get lucky by getting some truely exceptional players. There is no logical formula of getting a McDavid. You might get DiPietro or Diagle instead. Most importantly, everything is obvious in hindsight. I would argue that truely exceptional players (top 50 in the NHL), unless they are locker room cancers, make younger players better than good coaching makes them better. Nashville became a defensive factory for a long time Weber, Suter, Josi, Ellis, Ekholm, etc...precisely because the younger incoming players had someone to learn from and lookup to. The Sedin's learnt a lot from Naslund, Bertuzzi and Morrison. That experience is unquantifiable. This isn't a video game. They are human beings they have feelings and experience emotion. It's is exciting and intimidating to be on an NHL roster as a young man. You don't just achieve your potential just because the coaching is good. There are many factors that go into it. Winning games also has a significant impact on development. Sports is about confidence. If you are loosing all the time that means you have less of the puck. No matter how good you are, you are not going to play as well as you can under those circumstances. That has a cumulative affect on players. Bad games turn into slumps and slumps into demotions and then you find yourself in Europe...I would argue that there a lot of players that never made it to the NHL that could have great careers under different circumstances. We simply undervalue the human element here. This isn't the stock market, and they are not robots. Lastly, Miller doesn't need to be traded. I think Alvin is showing that realization as well. If its just a 1st round pick and two B level prospects then its sounds great asset management wise, but its not going to make the team meaningfully better in the future. Again it can, but it is improbable. I am not against a trade. I just don't want low quality. They have to get a significant young player back. Someone already in the NHL. Linden for Bertuzzi and McCabe comes to mind. Two young players with promise already playing the NHL. Yes it was a gamble, but it always had a higher probability of working out as both players were already playing pro-hockey successfully. There was no doubt that they were NHL players. I don't know if a trade like that is available for Miller. If it is then I would hope that they would consider it. Lafreniere and Schnieder comes to mind...Maybe you add something as Lafreniere is a former 1st overall, but its the type of trade that makes sense. Trading Miller just to manage the asset is nonsense. Keep him and let him help improve the young forwards this team already has. A year is forever in hockey. A lot could change. Boeser could get trade or go down with a career ending injury or whatever else. You never know what is going to happen between now and the end of next season. Heck Miller might score 100 points next season in Vancouver and lead them to a division title. Not likely, but it is possible. hahahahaha that's a joke in the same vain as the certainty of getting a Miller back for a random first round pick which is likely 20-30th overall as only a cup contender is going to want him.

A computer code eh? Hockey is a little more chaotic than logical. I get the gist of what you are saying. What I think you are missing in what I am saying is that there is a massive over emphasis on "asset management" in the way of thinking about building a hockey team than actually building a hockey team. You always take into consideration all variables in all of your decision making. Its the value on each variable that matters. The most important variable is team construction. 12 Brock Boeser's won't win you a championship, but from an asset management standpoint that would be the most asset rich team in the league. The top 50 players in the NHL are not easy to trade for. Especially not if you are trading multiple pieces for that top 50 player. That means that simple as saying he lets trade Miller to manage the asset. Your chance of getting a Miller back at some point is very low. This is the point that the asset managers miss. Getting quality from asset management is a very difficult task.

Depth is definitely not the issue. The Canucks have more forwards with 10+ or 7+ goals then almost every team in the NHL. Its the quality that is the issue. The Canucks need better players not more average players.

You have a lot of Ifs in there.

the term asset management borders on the absurd. JT Miller for 2 1st round picks is good asset management. The likelihood of those picks panning out to become JT Miller is exceptionally low forget being better than him. The team that gets the best player in the trade wins the trade. This is proven more often than not. There is no way we are getting the best player when we trade Miller. A lot people play too much video game hockey where you can always trade players as who cares on the impact in the room they are virtual hockey players. You can always trade two assets for 1, so it makes sense to trade everyone for a 7th round pick because you can then trade 2 7th round picks for a 6th round pick...2 6th round picks for a 5th round pick and so on and so on...Because you are managing your assets. You are always getting something for nothing. You are always improving the asset base! Sports is not a game of quantity. It is a game of quality. Quality is not obtained by trading quantity for quality. No smart GM would do that. Quantity is available in free agency every year. Those same 1st round picks are available in free agency, waiver wires or simple trades every year. Elite players are never available for a reason. There is a good amount of luck in obtaining truely exceptional players. When do have one, you don't trade them for quantity just to level the balance sheet. "To manage the cap and the term and the age and the whatever." You have to actually get a good player back not beans or maybes.

The Islanders are dead last in the league in scoring one goal behind Montreal. Regardless of what the coach is saying, the team doesn't score enough. Boeser in the lineup instead of Palmeri helps that a lot.

Palmeri scored 25 pretty consistently until last year, so I wouldn't say he is a complete bust; but this is the epitome of buying low. Digging in the trash can if you will... I don't think they would do Dobson for Boeser straight up, so you have to make it fit. If Palmeri stays and Boeser is added, then the cap space going to forwards is just way too much for them. They have to get some relief in a trade like this.