Maniwaki Canuck

Yes, this is where it gets difficult. There does have to be a walk-away point, beyond which you start to look at what kind of return you could get for him. I'd go to 8.5 but am not sure after that. It's not just the raw numbers against the cap, but what kind of bar you're setting for other players who need extensions. Same reason why Brock at 7.5 and Dickenson at 2.65 are problems. One thing about Miller: he's a way more complete player than Skinner and way less likely to underperform his next contract to that degree.

The "doesn't plan to stay here" scenario is the one that would definitely justify moving him, and there are some indications it might be true. He's American, been through some covid issues with the team here, there are tax and border issues, and he'll have all kinds of options as an FA in a bit over a year. From his point of view, staying here might not be the top option. If we can believe Serevalli, it sounds like management has discussed these issues with Miller's camp and are trying to make a deal that will maximize return for Vancouver and minimize disruption for Miller. That would be the right way to handle it. As for the "window" part of it, it's impossible to know in advance exactly when that would be. Some guys peak in their mid-20s, others in their early 30s. Just look at the difference between Hughes and Pettersson right now. If Petey were on the same developmental curve as Hughes, our window would already be open. We hope Hoglander and Podkolzin are going to improve their finishing and not just drive play, but who knows? Cup-winning teams do tend to be veteran-heavy but some (Chicago 2010) were less so and all had a mix of ages. Timing of career years and injuries play a big role: there's more than a bit of luck in that. If your team is declining you might want to take your chances and re-load, but if it's on the rise, that's a pretty big risk. Miller is a franchise player. Moving him voluntarily would be a mistake: you typically have about a 10% chance of winning or breaking even on those trades. But if your hand is forced, you do it, and that could well be the situation. If it happens, we'll still come out ahead of the 1st and 3rd he cost us so I'm going to try to stay zen about it and enjoy watching him play for us while he's still here. But as a fan with an emotional investment in the team, you have to love a guy like Miller. His fingerprints are all over the team, particularly the heart they've shown in the last couple of games he's been out of the lineup. Let's hope that holds up if and when he's gone for good.

The game was lost when we scored the first goal and "Bruce, there it is" was drowned out by the crappy music. It's like Petey's alien death stare: we're not the same without it.

Finishing is a challenge for us at the best of times and their goalie was really good last night, as he has been for a while now. Binnington's days as a #1 may be over. There are still plenty of positives for us to take away. The systems, effort and morale are all there: we've outplayed some of the best teams in the league during this tough part of our schedule. Just need a bit more skill, sharpness and puck luck on offense.

Really solid effort. Love this team's character.

So if we can believe what Serevalli was saying on 650 today, it sounds like management has talked with Miller about the future and that he's alright with being moved, and as a part of that, consulting with teams interested in acquiring him about whether he's interested in them long-term and what an extension would look like, which would certainly affect his value. That could mean he's not keen on re-signing, that his ask is too rich, or that management has decided to move on and get younger as Rutherford indicated when he was hired. While I'd rather he stayed, it is what it is: speculation about where he goes and what he returns is going to become an even bigger circus than it already is.

Yes, that's way more like it. For a player of Miller's stature you should definitely get someone like Kakko or Lafreniere on track for a top 6 role plus a prospect like Schneider. The scenario should be that NY wins the trade over the first 3-4 years while Miller is at his peak and we do thereafter. Our goal shouldn't be to get lots of lower quality assets but a couple with a strong chance of hitting big. Of course NY would rather go the first route but Rutherford wasn't born yesterday and would make them pay a fair price if he's even thinking of moving Miller, which seems unlikely at this early date. I assume that both management and Miller are still assessing how things are going in Vancouver and haven't come to any firm conclusions yet about future directions. There are good cases for him staying and for leaving. A lot will depend on how he feels and none of us can know that with any certainty. But the better the club plays under new management, the better the chances of him staying.

Sorry but the proposed return for Miller is terrible value. If you're only getting a D who's been playing in the minors, a 3rd line winger and a pick, even if it's a low 1st, that doesn't begin to equal a top scorer and all around player in the league who plays a premium position and is on a great contract. There just aren't many players in the league who can do what Miller does. If you have one, you do everything you can to hang onto them. If you have to deal them, you make damn sure you're getting back a player with good potential to reach the same level plus additional assets to cover the risk. The proposed return isn't even close to clearing that bar.

Funny but the result never felt in doubt during this game even when they got the first goal. We just stayed calm and kept playing our game. Bruce can say the team has the heart of a lion and I won't argue, but even with the fights and chippiness from Nashville, we were unflappable tonight. You can't play like that if you're not confident.

Vampire orca!

Makes Imac look like he has some social skills.

We've been around the block on this a few times, so I'm going to be selective and not respond to the red herrings, the points I've already agreed with or the blah blah blah about how old Miller is. Yes we'll need to replace Myers, Schenn and Hamonic before long, but not before they're actually gone, so unless you move 1-2 of them out with Miller, we're overloading at RD where we already have lots of NHL depth. Hamonic has an NTC and Myers will be hard to move at his salary so unless we can move Poolman, we'll be sitting an RD who deserves to play. This is a bad idea since we already spend way more on our D than just about any team. No argument about Miller's value, but how many contenders are going to have, let alone be willing to give up, the good young players we'd want in return? The Rangers are one of only a few clubs that could do it. If you need a bidding war to drive the price up, it may not happen, particularly at the deadline when cap space is scarce and teams rarely do radical surgery on their lineups. The basic issue, though, is the assumption that our D is suspect and our forwards are an area of strength, which gets repeated here endlessly and by the pundits. It ain't necessarily so.

Dumping our top offensive player might not be the concept but it would be the reality, with all the knock on effects that could follow. For example, how do we plan on winning games with an even weaker offense than we have now? Does Bo want to re-sign if we're still resetting/rebuilding? Etc., etc. If re-signing Miller isn't a realistic possibility of course we have to deal him. But I don't think management is going to do that if there's a decent chance of retaining him and I wouldn't expect to win any trade that might happen. Finding a trade partner willing to surrender a couple of top developing players isn't going to be easy.

Regarding the "trade Miller to upgrade at RD" narrative that litters this board: Interesting to hear Boudreau's pre-game media availability this morning, in which he was asked to assess the team. His answer was that they play pretty good defense but aren't a high octane offensive group. The numbers back this view up. We'll see whether Rutherford agrees, but I bet him and Boudreau have been discussing it and that he's not speaking just for himself. So if this is indeed an emerging management consensus about the team, does it sound as through they are going to voluntarily move their best offensive player? Not to me. Does it sound like they think the team's salary structure needs to be "rebalanced" even further towards our D when they are already one of the most expensive D corps in the league? Not to me. None of this addresses the question of whether JT will want to re-sign here or do so on terms that the club can live with. But it does suggest that they aren't about to underestimate his value to the club or deal him for a package of lesser assets like Schneider, Chytl, etc. Just remember: whoever gets the best player typically wins the trade. How likely is that for us if we deal Miller? Not very. Yes, it could happen, but probably only if management decides they have no choice. For that reason, I doubt very much they move him at this year's deadline or even during the next 12 months.

It was the rat boy: ran Hamonic into the boards. Looked like he hurt a knee to me.

Love the 4th line out on the back half of our last pp. Bruce justice.

Love me some run and gun. I know we're not supposed to play like this, but damn its fun.

Absolutely. There is a narrative about us being weak defensively that became established under Green but isn't really holding up this year, even when Green was still coach. We actually defend pretty well and it's not all Demko since we don't get hemmed in our own end anything like as often as we did a couple of years ago. I agree that we could use one more good D and humbly suggest that Rathbone is that guy. When you look at Florida's D, it's an excellent top pairing that's getting paid and solid but unspectacular guys outperforming value contracts after that. You can win that way and it's a model we should follow. The idea that we should trade Miller, Petey, Brock or Bo to bolster our D flies in the face of the anemic offense we've seen over this season and last. Except for Miller, we just don't have anyone who can finish consistently, and it's our single biggest problem.

We can hang with these top teams as far as the run of play goes, but we aren't finishing at their level. The problems with this team are on offense, not defense.

Play has been pretty even: finishing is the difference. It used to be our calling card, but not any more.

Bukauskas is a freak

Klingberg is not what we need, especially with the salary he'll command. Hughes, OEL and to a lesser extent Myers all play that role, and Rathbone will also before too long. We need D that can complement and support those guys, not duplicate them. And I won't even comment on the assets this proposal would waste to rent the guy.

Agree 100%. And for the record, I wouldn't at all rule out spending more (or moving some assets) on the next partner for Hughes. It all depends on what he needs, who's available, and where we get the most bang for our buck. What's been fascinating about the Boudreau era is how much better the same personnel is looking under a different system and how much (or not) that changes our assessment of the team's strengths and weaknesses. Wherever you ultimately fall on that question, it's better to re-examine the assumptions we formed under Green before making any moves. Rutherford is watching with eyes wide open, I'm pretty sure, even when he seems to be suggesting that it's clear where the upgrades need to happen.

I like him even better than Kessler: brings a different kind of attitude. But we have to trade him to build a contending lineup, dontchaknow.

One of the ways people have underestimated our defense is by giving each player a number from 1 to 8 or a pairing designation from 1 to 4. It doesn't always work like that. Schenn might count as a 6 to 8 guy in that way of thinking, but he complements Hughes really well so we get a lot more value out of him than would be the case when paired with somebody else. If we went out and spent 6M on a "better" partner for Hughes, how much better would that pairing be overall? If it's only 20-30%, you might be better off sticking with a guy like Schenn, asking Hughes to drive the pairing and spending the money elsewhere. But of course there are cases where it works the other way around, like pairing Myers with OEL, which seems to be bringing the best out of both. The point is to have 3 effective pairings without completely sacrificing cost efficiency. Mechanical thinking like "we need a top pairing RD to play with Hughes" isn't necessarily correct and can lead to sub-optimal cap allocation.