Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Discussion] Jeff Zatkoff Suffers Lower Body Injury - TRADE MILLER NOW


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, danaimo said:

Kings do not have the cap space to make this move.  50 % of Millers salary is 3m.  Zatkoff is on 900k, LA have only 1.5m according to nhlnumbers.com. 

If you think Miller has such value, consider the last time a 36yr old goaltender in the last year of his contract got traded. What was the return?

 

I don't think Millers value is all that great but LA kings have made some pretty bad trades in the last couple years. Traded Martin Jones, a decent d prospect and a first rounder for one year of Lucic. The year before traded A first round pick and a prospect for 3 months of Sekera. Whoever is in charge of the Kings isn't doing very good trade wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, danaimo said:

Kings do not have the cap space to make this move.  50 % of Millers salary is 3m.  Zatkoff is on 900k, LA have only 1.5m according to nhlnumbers.com. 

If you think Miller has such value, consider the last time a 36yr old goaltender in the last year of his contract got traded. What was the return?

 

In 2012 the Islanders even after Thomas said he wasn't gonna play for a year was traded for a conditional 2nd while he was 38 years old. A little bit further back in 2006 a 37 year old Dwayne Roloson with 3 months left on his contract was traded to Edmonton for a 1rst (17th overall) and a 3rd round pick. I get that it doesn't happen often enough that research is required and in both these examples the teams getting the goalies lost the trade. Some gms make bad deals. So Miller being moved for value shouldn't garner a response of "never gonna happen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, flickyoursedin said:

In 2012 the Islanders even after Thomas said he wasn't gonna play for a year was traded for a conditional 2nd while he was 38 years old. A little bit further back in 2006 a 37 year old Dwayne Roloson with 3 months left on his contract was traded to Edmonton for a 1rst (17th overall) and a 3rd round pick. I get that it doesn't happen often enough that research is required and in both these examples the teams getting the goalies lost the trade. Some gms make bad deals. So Miller being moved for value shouldn't garner a response of "never gonna happen".

 

Thank you for taking time to research Thomas and Roloson.  I'm not sure that Thomas is a comparable as this was not a hockey trade but more of a salary cap dump helping BOS get beneath the cap and NYI get up to the floor.  But you clearly make the point that such trades are rare.  And they are rare for an obvious reason. Just because Kevin Lowe made a terrible trade in 2006 does not in any way make a Miller trade to LA any more feasible.

 

Miller is not going to be traded to LA.  Never gonna happen.

The lack of return that the Canucks would get back is only one reason.  Even if LA were stupid enough to send a 1st round pick our way, there are still a number of obstacles to a trade.

 

1. Doesn't make sense for the Canucks whose stated aim is to make the playoffs.  Losing your starting goalie in no way makes this more probable.  They have strength in the goaltending position, there is no reason to weaken this position if you don't have to, particularly if you would be improving the prospects of a Divisional rival. 

2. LA have better options open to them.  They could try to scratch by with Budaj and Zatkov, trade for Pavelec etc.  Trading for Miller would be an expensive commitment and so it doesn't make sense for them to lose a 1st round pick for the services of Miller for 2 or 3 months, and then have a $6m player riding the pine when Quick returns.  Also by this time, there will probably be little trade value for Miller, so LA would be stuck with him.

3. They don't have cap space.

4.  They don't have cap space

5. They don't have cap space.  I realise that points 3,4 and 5 are all the same, but this is such an important point that it really needs emphasis.

6. It makes no sense for Miller.  He has a no trade clause so ultimately controls any trade.  Why would he give up a season-long starting job in favour of a 2 or 3 month starting assignment.  LA already have their starter and when Quick is fit he will return to be their starter.  Miller is not going to want to be Quick's back up.

 

The challenge for anyone who thinks that a Miller trade to LA is possible, is simply this;  Make a proposal that works for both teams and the player.  State exactly who is going where and whether there is any retained salary etc.  Ensure that both teams are cap compliant. I am yet to read or hear anyone do this.  If you think you have the answer, then please post it.   Never gonna happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay, another Miller to LA thread! But yet another one that doesn't take into account that LA likely has easier or better options they could trade for, and that the proposal

doesn't even work looking at the cap.

  1. Miller 50% retained is still a $3M cap hit.
  2. Vancouver doesn't have roster space for a depth forward.
  3. LA has $1.5M in cap space.
  4. LA's depth players are only making ~$600K, and combined with Zatkoff's $900K, would only just equal their remaining cap space.
  5. LA would have to call up another player to get back to a 23-man roster but wouldn't have room.
  6. LA also wouldn't have room to call up any other player in the event of further injury.

LA could trade for Greiss from the Islanders for instance, and give up a lesser return than what you're proposing and get a lower cap hit goalie back. I haven't even looked into other options, but clearly there are less expensive ones for LA available if they wanted to go that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2016 at 11:44 AM, Bur14Kes17 said:

Simply put. His value will NEVER be higher. Trade him now. Get that 1st round pick.

 

give them Miller, retain half salary, and take back Zatkoff, a 1st round, and a depth player to make the salary work

 

Call up Bachman to back up Markstrom until Zatkoff is healthy.

 

Lets do the math. Even retaining half of Millers salary (3m) Zatkoff only makes 900K. So LA is going 2.1M in the hole. Remember, if you take a player off the roster a player has to go back on to replace him meaning they have to move somebody with a 2.1M cap hit plus the cost of his replacement cap hit. This means a roster player with a minimum of a 3M to 3.2M cap hit coming back to us. They'd have to send Toffoli (3.25M), Gaborik (4.875M), or Carter (5.273M) to make it work for Quick coming back and replacing the roster forward traded. I can't see them shipping out Toffoli for a rental and I can't see us wanting Gaborik or Carter as they're older than what we'd want. There's no deal there that makes sense for LA or us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...