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

[StanleyCupOneDay]

Here’s a hot take. We got a 50% discount. Miller is worth 2 1sts and 2 3rds. 26 years old, on pace for 75-80 points at $5.25m per year cap hit and signed for 3 more seasons. Try to tell me teams wouldn’t give up 2 1sts + for a non rental player like that.

[-DLC-]

4 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

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. 

"Vancouver did not".  Who are you to determine that?  They felt they did...and I agree.  They needed some leadership and veteran presence that has greatly proven itself to be true.  

 

What are you basing "had to" on?  Pure cap and numbers?  That's only one part of assessing "needs" on a team.

[peaches5]

2 minutes ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:

Here’s a hot take. We got a 50% discount. Miller is worth 2 1sts and 2 3rds. 26 years old, on pace for 75-80 points at $5.25m per year cap hit and signed for 3 more seasons. Try to tell me teams wouldn’t give up 2 1sts + for a non rental player like that.

Yea so every player who is a possible top 6 forward playing on the 3rd line signed to 5+M a year should be traded for 2 1sts.. Doesn't work that way. 

[peaches5]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

"Vancouver did not".  Who are you to determine that?  They felt they did...and I agree.  They needed some leadership and veteran presence that has greatly proven itself to be true.

 

What are you basing "had to" on?  Pure cap and numbers?  That's only one part of assessing "needs" on a team.

Because were weren't over the cap. Tampa could not go into the season with their current cap and JT Miller had a NTC kicking in July 1 so they had to move him pretty quickly.  These things would factor in to a trade on what the return is you can get. These things don't fit some people's narrative are disregarded as irrelevant and not part of their "trade formula".

[-DLC-]

Your own "expert":

Quote

 

Iain MacIntyre@imacSportsnetJune 22, 2019, 7:04 PM

102

VANCOUVER – Saturday’s bold trade for J.T. Miller reflects the urgency within the Vancouver Canucks to push for the playoffs next season, as well as a new stage in the National Hockey League team’s evolution.

 

So the team felt an urgent need for something.  Sure, mostly for revenue and to sell tickets, but the flipside is keeping Vancouver as a desirable market and to make sure the first round prospects in place stayed happy.  They don't like losing.  They want to be in the playoffs.

 

So they felt they did "have to" do something...and they did.  And they valued Miller as a suitable player for fill the needs they'd identified...and I agree with them.

 

Not much to argue here.

[-DLC-]

1 minute ago, peaches5 said:

Because were weren't over the cap. Tampa could not go into the season with their current cap and JT Miller had a NTC kicking in July 1 so they had to move him pretty quickly.  These things would factor in to a trade on what the return is you can get. These things don't fit some people's narrative are disregarded as irrelevant and not part of their "trade formula".

This was no secret...and the fact that other teams passed just meant they weren't in OUR situation.  We could do this and did.  Our team felt he was a piece that was needed and was willing to pay the asking price.  

 

Comparing on a scale of numbers is all you're doing...but it's more than that.

[StanleyCupOneDay]

7 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

Yea so every player who is a possible top 6 forward playing on the 3rd line signed to 5+M a year should be traded for 2 1sts.. Doesn't work that way. 

Yes because JT Miller obviously plays on the 3rd line with Pettersson. I’m talking about in hindsight, what we know now, would other teams trade 2 1sts + for a 1st line 75-80 point player signed cheap for 3 more seasons at 26 years old? I’m saying yes. That’s my hot take.

Edited January 26, 2020 by StanleyCupOneDay

[-DLC-]

14 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

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. 

We also have to wait to see how those picks pan out.  

 

You want it to be nicely contained in a trade day box.  Open it up and determine good or bad.

 

That's completely irrelevant to the team in the here and now.  Again...roll the dice.  Some will be good, some bad.  We got a good one in Miller.  Not sure why we have to prove something different in all of this?  If Tampa got something "good", good for them (too)?

[peaches5]

3 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

This was no secret...and the fact that other teams passed just meant they weren't in OUR situation.  We could do this and did.  Our team felt he was a piece that was needed and was willing to pay the asking price.  

 

Comparing on a scale of numbers is all you're doing...but it's more than that.

That is exactly what I said. Vancouver paid the asking price. 

[-DLC-]

2 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

That is exactly what I said. Vancouver paid the asking price. 

And ?

 

That's how trades generally work.  You wanted them to barter but they wanted Miller and he's paid off in dividends.  And we all lived happily ever after (except you?).  Not sure why that is.

[oldnews]

22 hours ago, peaches5 said:

mediocre year and was a third line team on a team he should have been a top 6 or top 3 forward.

mediocre 3rd liner - who 'should have' been a top 6 or 3?

 

Interesting..

 

What "formula" are you using here?

[peaches5]

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

We also have to wait to see how those picks pan out.  

 

You want it to be nicely contained in a trade day box.  That's it/good or bad.

 

That's completely irrelevant to the team in the here and now.  Again...roll the dice.  Some will be good, some bad.  We got a good one in Miller.  Not sure why we have to prove something different in all of this?  If Tampa got something "good", good for them (too)?

I am not the one creating biased formula to prove this trade is something that it's not. I am calling that out. 'Oh, look how right I was let me list all these positives..' those are meaningless. Tampa isn't going to value this trade based on who they draft. They needed to get rid of JT Miller and wanted draft picks back. They got what they wanted. If they don't draft someone better than JT Miller that doesn't make it a bad trade. They got a fair amount for him and if they draft poorly that is a completely different issue.

[peaches5]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

mediocre 3rd liner - who 'should have' been a top 6 or 3?

 

Interesting..

 

What "formula" are you using here?

I didn't say mediocre 3rd liner. I said he had a mediocre year. He was traded for to play with Stamkos and Kucherov. He started the following year there and then moved down to Point's line and then was demoted to the 3rd line where he spent the majority of the year. On a team stacked full of talent he was not fitting in - Brisebois said this. He had an all time low, 75 + games played, 13 goals. 

[-DLC-]

10 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

I am not the one creating biased formula to prove this trade is something that it's not. I am calling that out. 

You've used a very narrow formula to prove the trade was not something it's turned out to be.  We're just calling that out.

 

It's about perspective at this point and most just don't share yours.  And that's ok.

[peaches5]

12 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

And ?

 

That's how trades generally work.  You wanted them to barter but they wanted Miller and he's paid off in dividends.  And we all lived happily ever after (except you?).  Not sure why that is.

Apparently saying Vancouver paid the asking price means I have NHL executive experience and I need to prove my credentials. When I stated this was actually what was said at the time by analysts etc I was mocked and then when I posted an article proving that it was ignored. I wonder why. 

[peaches5]

3 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

You've used a very narrow formula to prove the trade was not something it's turned out to be.  We're just calling that out.

 

It's about perspective at this point and most just don't share yours.  And that's ok.

If you buy a lottery ticket and win the lottery and then create some formula around buying lottery tickets as the key to becoming wealthy it's absolutely worthless. 

[-DLC-]

Here's that double talk (again)...if you want people to take you seriously, pick a side and stay there.  Don't sit on the fence and move around accordingly.

 

Quote

overall the trade is pretty fair

 

Then you've changed your mind?  The goalposts again?

 

Quote

He was absolutely an overpayment, just as we overpaid for Gudbranson. Even at the time of the trade the "experts", not CDC; who are frequently made to look like fools, said the Canucks overpaid and could have gotten him cheaper.....

Then you go on to slam Miller to support he wasn't worth it.  It doesn't seem like you're even clear on the point you're trying to make so you can't expect us to "get it".

 

Now you're back pedalling, so I have no further need to engage in this as it's a time waster.  It's such a pointless argument...things DID turn out so it was (draft picks) money well spent.  

 

 

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

If you buy a lottery ticket and win the lottery and then create some formula around buying lottery tickets as the key to becoming wealthy it's absolutely worthless. 

If you buy a lotto ticket, then moan about how you should have got it cheaper, it is worthless to create a formula after you win

[peaches5]

3 minutes ago, gurn said:

If you buy a lotto ticket, then moan about how you should have got it cheaper, it is worthless to create a formula after you win

I am not moaning about it. I pointing out the value of the ticket at the time of purchasing the ticket. It's $6 ticket regardless of it giving you $70,000,000 

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

If you buy a lottery ticket and win then people ask you if you think they should play the lottery you'll likely tell them it's worth taking a chance on.

 

It's a roll the dice thing...I've said that.

 

A lot of the "trade" "lotteries" (deals) are wins...Miller isn't the one in a million that worked out and is a fluke.  The team saw something there and paid accordingly.  Are they wrong?  Are we wrong to say it worked?  Or are you wrong, in trying to somehow prove it shouldn't have?

They paid for something with fair value and it turned out to be worth much more. You can't look back and go oh we could have given up Boeser and our first and 2nd and it still would have been a great deal! It doesn't work that way. At the time of the trade it was fair - that means there's risk for Tampa and for The Canucks. To say otherwise then use JT Miller play after the fact a justification is ridiculous. Then when people point out well JT Miller wasn't that player at the time of the trade people start bullying and trolling so anyone who doesn't share their opinion leaves.

[-DLC-]

Quote

They paid for something with fair value and it turned out to be worth much more

So if we leave it here, we should all be ok then....the fact that you keep adding to it is the problem, not the solution as I see it.