Should we trade Miller in the summer? [Discussion]

[baumerman77]

The problem is that Miller's trade value is very low. I generally don't like trading guys with unsustainably low trade value. However with Miller it would probably be best to cut our losses. We could have Markstrom and Lack for roughly 3 mil total next year. I would rather that duo and then spend Miller's extra 4.5 mill somewhere else.

[aGENT]

The problem is that Miller's trade value is very low. I generally don't like trading guys with unsustainably low trade value. However with Miller it would probably be best to cut our losses. We could have Markstrom and Lack for roughly 3 mil total next year. I would rather that duo and then spend Miller's extra 4.5 mill somewhere else.

I'd Ehrhoff Miller's contract in a second just for the cap space. Any returns we get on top of that are gravy IMO.

[Mustapha]

I'd Ehrhoff Miller's contract in a second just for the cap space. Any returns we get on top of that are gravy IMO.

I tend to agree. I am wary when guys around the age of 35 get knee injuries...Those were the end of guys like Fuhr and Richter.

I know it was his first game back, but Miller didn't look anywhere close to game shape. Forget the goals he let in, he looked laboured just to get up off his knees.

Not good.

[VegasCanuck]

Before I start, let me say that I'm ABSOLUTELY for trading Miller. It simply makes sense.

But if one did want to retain him, you could start by not re-signing Matthias, and moving at least one of Hansen/Higgins (which may happen anyways). That gets you a fair bit of the way there

That said, I wouldn't be all that surprised if we end up moving one of Hamhuis/Bieksa either.

My calculation of about 5 million left was based on not resigning Matthais.

If, as being suggested, the cap comes in as low as 70 million, then we have 3.5 million to get 6 guys to fill spots and get under cap.

I'm sure Benning and Linden have a plan, it might involve the idea of moving Miller.

I know he just signed with us, but I'm sure he also understands the nature of the cap and the business of hockey.

[Junkyard Dog]

Because it's inefficient use of cap space to have $6m sitting on the bench for 1/2 the games. That money could be better spent upgrading our D and playing every game.

Miller was indeed a stop gap...well guess what? There's no or very little gap anymore.

If Lack gets injured like Miller has would you trust Markstrom or a backup goalie to be the #1 for a significant time? We have no next goalie and no UFA backup would be able to hold the fort significantly as Lack did while Miller.

Again why mess with a winning formula? We made the playoffs with 2 solid goalies in the past with Luongo and Schnieder and we did again this season with Lack and Miller.

Miller is not only a stop gap for Lack but a stop gap for another young goalie like maybe Demko or even O'Conner, who we are reportedly interested in.

Miller was signed to a 3 year deal. That's a short term contract that fits this teams plans moving forward. It, like the Vrbata signing, will help keep us competitive for the duration of it or until there's another younger goalie that is not Lack that's able to fill a backup role well enough to move him.

There will be no controversy since Miller knew what to expect when he signed here and Lack doesn't seem like the type of goalie that would be upset at having another solid goalie on this team.

Those are the reasons why we should not trade Miller now.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Were fans in Ottawa counting on Hammond(back in Oct/Nov) if their 2 'tenders got injured? Never know a guy's true value until he's tested under fire.

Miller for 2 more yrs at 6 mill, is ludicrous for us; yet for teams like SJ, Buff or Edm, might be perfectly reasonable...

[Crabcakes]

Nuxfan

That's taking a big chance. Do you think that a GM (Benning) who would sign a proven goalie (Miller) to a 3 x $6M contract as insurance that goaltending would not be an issue for the short term, would take a flyer on a tandem of Lack and Markstrom (who is completely unproven at the NHL level and looked nervous in his only start this year? And had to be pulled after only 10 mins). A back up goaltender would start 20-25 games a season and we need some assurance that goaltending wouldn't be an issue in these games. Or in the case of injury even more games.

No, Benning still doesn't want goaltending to be an issue. He is conservative in regards to the most important position.

Exactly as Junkyard Dog has said. Miller was brought in as a stop gap or a bridge #1 goaltender to fill a need until younger goalies in the system develop into legitimate #1's themselves. The thing is, there was no way of knowing how long this development would take. Lack has shown since the Miller injury that he is a better goalie than he was a year ago.

So while Lack is close and deserves more responsibility next year, Markstrom has not shown that he is ready to back up. Since he has to clear waivers, he will be traded.

[BI3KSA-]

If Lack gets injured like Miller has would you trust Markstrom or a backup goalie to be the #1 for a significant time? We have no next goalie and no UFA backup would be able to hold the fort significantly as Lack did while Miller.

Again why mess with a winning formula? We made the playoffs with 2 solid goalies in the past with Luongo and Schnieder and we did again this season with Lack and Miller.

Miller is not only a stop gap for Lack but a stop gap for another young goalie like maybe Demko or even O'Conner, who we are reportedly interested in.

Miller was signed to a 3 year deal. That's a short term contract that fits this teams plans moving forward. It, like the Vrbata signing, will help keep us competitive for the duration of it or until there's another younger goalie that is not Lack that's able to fill a backup role well enough to move him.

There will be no controversy since Miller knew what to expect when he signed here and Lack doesn't seem like the type of goalie that would be upset at having another solid goalie on this team.

Those are the reasons why we should not trade Miller now.

The majority of teams in the NHL would be in trouble if there starter went down for a long period of time. Thats just how it is in the NHL, most teams do not have 2 number 1s. Its completely inefficient for us to keep 6 million extra on our cap when there is a very large chance we dont even need it. 6 million in cap is a game changer. Thats a legit 2nd line center or a very solid defensemen.

Sign a veteran thats capable and trade Miller so we can make some big moves and make ourselves into a legit contender.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Don't know, CC..I'd say the whole contract is debatable. Could he have signed RM at 2 yrs x 5~5.5 millsy?..We'll never know.

There's a lot of MG lingering contempt, online..but one could argue his contract negotiating prowess(strictly numbers, not clauses in particular) has enabled JB financial-leeway to overpay already, or allot cash, based on either reputation or projections.

Revisionist-historians love to speak in absolutes..I'm simply not easily persuaded that it would have been "absolute DISASTER!" to enter this season with lots of youth/inexperience in goal.

[BI3KSA-]

Don't know, CC..I'd say the whole contract is debatable. Could he have signed RM at 2 yrs x 5~5.5 millsy?..We'll never know.

There's a lot of MG lingering contempt, online..but one could argue his contract negotiating prowess(strictly numbers, not clauses in particular) has enabled JB financial-leeway to overpay already, or allot cash, based on either reputation or projections.

Revisionist-historians love to speak in absolutes..I'm simply not easily persuaded that it would have been "absolute DISASTER!" to enter this season with lots of youth/inexperience in goal.

It wouldnt have been an absolute disaster, but it would have been a decently large risk, especially for a first year GM. I also don't think its been bad for Lack whatsoever to gave another world class goalie to learn from.

[VegasCanuck]

If Lack gets injured like Miller has would you trust Markstrom or a backup goalie to be the #1 for a significant time? We have no next goalie and no UFA backup would be able to hold the fort significantly as Lack did while Miller.

Again why mess with a winning formula? We made the playoffs with 2 solid goalies in the past with Luongo and Schnieder and we did again this season with Lack and Miller.

Miller is not only a stop gap for Lack but a stop gap for another young goalie like maybe Demko or even O'Conner, who we are reportedly interested in.

Miller was signed to a 3 year deal. That's a short term contract that fits this teams plans moving forward. It, like the Vrbata signing, will help keep us competitive for the duration of it or until there's another younger goalie that is not Lack that's able to fill a backup role well enough to move him.

There will be no controversy since Miller knew what to expect when he signed here and Lack doesn't seem like the type of goalie that would be upset at having another solid goalie on this team.

Those are the reasons why we should not trade Miller now.

I hate the idea of letting him go as well, but what you haven't done here is made any other suggestion on how you would get this team under cap next year if it doesn't involve trading Miller.

Personally, I would trade him to free up the space and I would either try and obtain a lower priced backup goalie in the trade, or sign someone during summer who could drive Markstrom and give us an option in case of injury.

I like that you say you wouldn't trade him, but if you're thinking like a GM, you have to have some idea of how else you would make this fit? I'm sure Benning has a plan, speculate on what yours would be if you're not moving Miller.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Yeah Keshniel..there are many aspects worth consideration here. For example, if Lack were given the reins & he excelled, he would've likely gotten a larger cap-hit(subsequent contracts) more quickly, & the same might be applied to Markstrom.

One way or another, you'll pay for competent gting.

One concern I have is we may lose 1 or 2 future quality gt's by creating this logjam.

Another point on contracts, is an apparent coming cap/cash-crunch. League-wide, there may be a sweeping attempt of teams to dump pricey vets. This summer could very well be a key time for GM's to hold extra cap space.

Last yr I'd say this played a part in NYI quickly acquiring a D-cast of quality.

[Crabcakes]

I'm only saying that based on Bennings actions to date. I don't think that it's a risk that he would take.

The trade off is the $6M cap hit which, I agree is a lot. Personally, I can see the benefit of either approach.

[Crabcakes]

VegasCanuck

Keeping Miller would mean cutting back elsewhere obviously. As others have said, I think it could mean letting Matthias go and also trading Higgins for picks for example. Whoever they chose the total would have to be $5M+.

Matthias is only 27 but Higgins is 31.

Whoever moved would have to be on the high side of 28 and in return some of the picks that were traded could be replenished.

[VegasCanuck]

VegasCanuck

Keeping Miller would mean cutting back elsewhere obviously. As others have said, I think it could mean letting Matthias go and also trading Higgins for picks for example. Whoever they chose the total would have to be $5M+.

Matthias is only 27 but Higgins is 31.

Whoever moved would have to be on the high side of 28 and in return some of the picks that were traded could be replenished.

It could also be that they really believe that players like Jensen, Gaunce, Shinkaruk and Virtanen are ready to make the leap to the NHL next year.

I'd love to keep Matthias, but he's another one that I'm not sure if we have room to sign. I think, based on this season, that he's probably looking for 3 million.

[Me_]

I say trade Miller, and possibly Markstrom, too.

Miller because of his cap hit. If we really need an experienced goalie, we can sign Niemi to a 2 year, $3 or $4 million contract to be a #1A to Lack's #1. Markstrom, we could get a decent prospect from a team that desperately needs a young goalie, possible a pick.

I hope Miller stands on his head and wins the Cup so you can be exposed as damned fraud.

[Me_]

I'd Ehrhoff Miller's contract in a second just for the cap space. Any returns we get on top of that are gravy IMO.

Those times when 16 year olds take over the internet...

[aGENT]

If Lack gets injured like Miller has would you trust Markstrom or a backup goalie to be the #1 for a significant time? We have no next goalie and no UFA backup would be able to hold the fort significantly as Lack did while Miller.

Again why mess with a winning formula? We made the playoffs with 2 solid goalies in the past with Luongo and Schnieder and we did again this season with Lack and Miller.

Miller is not only a stop gap for Lack but a stop gap for another young goalie like maybe Demko or even O'Conner, who we are reportedly interested in.

Miller was signed to a 3 year deal. That's a short term contract that fits this teams plans moving forward. It, like the Vrbata signing, will help keep us competitive for the duration of it or until there's another younger goalie that is not Lack that's able to fill a backup role well enough to move him.

There will be no controversy since Miller knew what to expect when he signed here and Lack doesn't seem like the type of goalie that would be upset at having another solid goalie on this team.

Those are the reasons why we should not trade Miller now.

The majority of teams in the NHL would be in trouble if there starter went down for a long period of time. Thats just how it is in the NHL, most teams do not have 2 number 1s. Its completely inefficient for us to keep 6 million extra on our cap when there is a very large chance we dont even need it. 6 million in cap is a game changer. Thats a legit 2nd line center or a very solid defensemen.

Sign a veteran thats capable and trade Miller so we can make some big moves and make ourselves into a legit contender.

Kesh already largely covered it but the vast majority of teams don't have the luxury or (wasted) cap space to employ two #1 goalies. You have to have faith in your prospects, coaches, development etc that if called upon, a guy can come in and fill in.

I actually think Markstromn would do just fine. I'm sure he's have a bad goal here and a bad game there where CDC would crucify him but by and large he's a big, talented goalie who, like Lack a couple years ago, merely needs the opportunity and would hold the fort just fine. Just as Hammond has done in Ottawa this year and countless other goalies have done before.

And especially if we can garner the cap space to upgrade our D (a player who would actually play every game if healthy) to insulate the goalies even further. Hell yes we should move Miller.

Better D plus Lack/Markstrom is far better use of limited cap than Chinese fire drill D and Lack/Miller.

[aGENT]

Those times when 16 year olds take over the internet...

16 was a long time ago chief.

[Me_]

16 was a long time ago chief.

Well then sport; that's even sadder.