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

[rekker]

Just now, DeNiro said:

I think alot of people who may have been against it in the beginning are coming around.

 

Once the shock wears off of us trading a first round pick, you realize that Miller is a good player on a good contract that you gotta give something valuable to acquire.

 

I think too often in this market fans think that we're going to get good players for scraps. Everything has to be a "steal" otherwise our GM sucks.

Yip. I know I was WTF when I first heard it. But to reflect and look at the big picture we are a playoff team next year with Myers and who knows who else. If not we keep the pick. If we aren't a playoff team in two years I would be shocked and would have to think this team has bigger issues. 

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

In this case its not just 'some risk'. Its a perfect example of mortgaging the future.

But it is just 'some risk'. 

 

We got a player worth much more than a first round pick for...a first round pick (and spare parts). Is there some chance that that pick will be worth more than Miller in 3+ years? Yes. There's some fractional chance the 3rd is worth more than him too. But that chance is MUCH smaller than the chance that Miller is worth as much or more than, the pick.

 

Never mind what we gain in the interim of those 2-3 years for our other, current players.

[Baggins]

15 minutes ago, Provost said:

Except you are entirely missing the entire point.

 

If we were negotiating a trade for a D during the seedy weekend, we aren’t over a barrel because there are several

available and we have the ability to say no thanks and move on to free agency.  That is entirely different than having used our biggest trade chip already and only having 2-3 UFA D who fill out needs.  

 

I have done done a lot of high level negotiating, and there is a concept called a BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement).  Essentially, you do a lot of work ahead of time to put yourself in a position where you aren’t as desperate, and know when waking away is better than signing a bad deal.  In this case, Benning has a terrible BATNA... going into next season with the same D core AND having already played his hand showing that we need to add and go for it so our pick to Tampa isn’t a disaster.

 

If he had been negotiating with a bunch of teams on the weekend, he has a much better walk away BATNA back up plan of moving on to free agency and Myers.

I see that as an exageration. Who in the NHL world didn't think we need to improve our D? Who in the NHL world didn't think we needed another top six forward? And just in case some were too stupid to figure it out Benning actually came out and publicly said he was looking to add a top four d-man and a top 6 forward. One or the other was coming first. The only way I see the Tampa trade becoming a "disaster" is if Miller's game goes completely to hell and Tampa gets a lottery pick from us in two years. Which I see as unlikely. I suspect Benning was looking at getting one by trade and the other through free agency. Miller coming first has no effect on free agency. If anything he's another positive reason for UFA to join this team.

 

We have two years for your disaster not to occur. I really don't get the panic given how much can occur in a single year to improve a team. 

 

[Smashian Kassian]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

But it is just 'some risk'. 

 

We got a player worth much more than a first round pick for...a first round pick (and spare parts). Is there some chance that that pick will be worth more than Miller in 3+ years? Yes. There's some fractional chance the 3rd is worth more than him too. But that chance is MUCH smaller than the chance that Miller is worth as much or more than, the pick.

 

Never mind what we gain in the interim of those 2-3 years for our other, current players.

 

Its debatable. Whether or not the pick is worth more depends where the pick is in the round. Also depends on the strength of the draft class.

 

I wouldn't say Miller is worth 'much more'. Its fair value, its definitely not some kind of steal.

 

 

[rekker]

9 minutes ago, Baggins said:

I see that as an exageration. Who in the NHL world didn't think we need to improve our D? Who in the NHL world didn't think we needed another top six forward? And just in case some were too stupid to figure it out Benning actually came out and publicly said he was looking to add a top four d-man and a top 6 forward. One or the other was coming first. The only way I see the Tampa trade becoming a "disaster" is if Miller's game goes completely to hell and Tampa gets a lottery pick from us in two years. Which I see as unlikely. I suspect Benning was looking at getting one by trade and the other through free agency. Miller coming first has no effect on free agency. If anything he's another positive reason for UFA to join this team.

 

We have two years for your disaster not to occur. I really don't get the panic given how much can occur in a single year to improve a team. 

 

The big need for a top six is there and not just a smurf with skill. We needed a tougher player and we got one. Still a spot for Baer or Goldy to seize as well. 

[Angry Goose]

The way I see it, you get a developed and proven first rounder in Miller.  I'm really into his all around play which I think will really help the top 6.  I just hope to God the 1st round pick isn't a lotto pick.  If that's the case and he helps Petey and Brock or Bo I'll be happy.  

 

 

[Provost]

5 minutes ago, Baggins said:

I see that as an exageration. Who in the NHL world didn't think we need to improve our D? Who in the NHL world didn't think we needed another top six forward? And just in case some were too stupid to figure it out Benning actually came out and publicly said he was looking to add a top four d-man and a top 6 forward. One or the other was coming first. The only way I see the Tampa trade becoming a "disaster" is if Miller's game goes completely to hell and Tampa gets a lottery pick from us in two years. Which I see as unlikely. I suspect Benning was looking at getting one by trade and the other through free agency. Miller coming first has no effect on free agency. If anything he's another positive reason for UFA to join this team.

 

We have two years for your disaster not to occur. I really don't get the panic given how much can occur in a single year to improve a team. 

 

Two things, 

 

It isn’t JUST teams and players knowing we need to add, it is ALSO what alternatives are open to us.  Oldnews in an attempt to show how many D were available wrote a list earlier in the thread.  It was damning his own point since there weren’t many top 4 guys on the list, except Ristolainen, and that is someone it would be handy to have a 1st round pick as a trade chip if we had any hopes of getting g him.  Myers agent knows there are more teams that need him and he will have options (a good BATNA) so he can push really hard in negotiations.  If Benning doesn’t land Myers, he has to hope he can find a filler guy like Stralman before other teams snag them all.

 

As far as “disaster” happening.  I don’t know if it will, just my point is that the risk is absolutely there.  It is probably more likely than not that we miss the playoffs this year.  We had a lot of things go right last year with Petterson having a great first half, Markstrom playing as a top 5-10 goalie most of the year, and a bunch of teams in the West that were truly awful.  Even if we are a better team, it will take a lot for us to move up substantially in the standings.

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Its debatable. Whether or not the pick is worth more depends where the pick is in the round. Also depends on the strength of the draft class.

 

I wouldn't say Miller is worth 'much more'. Its fair value, its definitely not some kind of steal.

 

 

It costs more than a 1st to rent a player of Miller's caliber for nothing more than a playoff run. He's worth more than a 1st.

 

Far more like a 1st, an A prospect and possibly a third smaller piece. We paid a good price for him.

 

I'd wager the pick will be a mid-late 1st. It's the likeliest outcome.

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, RRypien37 said:

His assessment is correct so not sure what you are confused about? He said WORST case scenario. 

"Worst case" is he breaks his leg and doesn't ever make the team, if you want to play that game.

 

To equate JT Miller as being anything like Sutter is patently ridiculous, and considering it's coming from people who should know better, a sign of desperation to buttress a failed argument.  They are not only physically different but play a different game and... yeah, it doesn't even need to be explained.

[Trebreh]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It costs more than a 1st to rent a player of Miller's caliber for nothing more than a playoff run. He's worth more than a 1st.

 

Far more like a 1st, an A prospect and possibly a third smaller piece. We paid a good price for him.

 

I'd wager the pick will be a mid-late 1st. It's the likeliest outcome.

and say we still suck for two more years, but Miller is racking up the points playing with Petey and Brock, he would fetch a really good return cause is would still be signed to 2 more years at 5.2m! His contract will be one of the best in the NHL in two years as the cap goes up. 

[The Lock]

15 minutes ago, Provost said:

As far as “disaster” happening.  I don’t know if it will, just my point is that the risk is absolutely there.  It is probably more likely than not that we miss the playoffs this year.  We had a lot of things go right last year with Petterson having a great first half, Markstrom playing as a top 5-10 goalie most of the year, and a bunch of teams in the West that were truly awful.  Even if we are a better team, it will take a lot for us to move up substantially in the standings.

With this, I want to point out the way I see it. There's a risk no matter what we do. If we chose not to do anything, there's a risk that we don't improve since we didn't go out and make the bold trade. There's a risk with every draft pick. There's a risk all of our players get injured and we have to call up beer leagers to play (exaggeration obviously but I hope you understand what I'm saying).

 

My thought with going up in the standings is, if we don't go up the standings, if could also mean we didn't do enough. At that point, we should have made perhaps even BOLDER trades, or more bold trades like the one we just did at the very least. Another thought would be we didn't do the right trades, which is also possible although dwelling on that is almost pointless as then we need to ask "what are the right trades" and I don't care who you are on these forums: none of us know that answer.

 

So with most deals, I tend to shrug things off, not because I'm a homer, but because I need time to think about the trade and the reasoning behind that trade. If I see a reasonable thought process with it, then I'm fine with it. I can honestly say I'm fine with this trade because I think we're out of the rebuild at this point. This trade is almost like a statement that says the rebuild is over, or, we can at least start thinking more than just the draft. Our players, like Horvat, who has been waiting patiently, eventually need to reach the playoffs and, if we don't, we have much bigger problems than not having that 1st rounder.

Edited June 24, 2019 by The Lock

[Smashian Kassian]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It costs more than a 1st to rent a player of Miller's caliber for nothing more than a playoff run. He's worth more than a 1st.

 

Far more like a 1st, an A prospect and possibly a third smaller piece. We paid a good price for him.

 

I'd wager the pick will be a mid-late 1st. It's the likeliest outcome.

 

That's deadline deals, not really comparable. Usually costs more than a 1st to get a top 4 defenseman for a playoff run, yet PK Subban is worth two 2nd's. 

 

Its more comparable to Calgary trading a 1st for Hamonic I'd say. Getting top 2 line player under contract for a projected mid 1st. From a team that was a borderline playoff team (and ended up outside).

 

If its mid/late then sure its a good price, fair price, but a good price.

[Gaudette Celly]

deepee

Edited June 24, 2019 by Hutton Wink

[Baggins]

2 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Its debatable. Whether or not the pick is worth more depends where the pick is in the round. Also depends on the strength of the draft class.

 

I wouldn't say Miller is worth 'much more'. Its fair value, its definitely not some kind of steal.

 

 

I'd say it's fair value now if it's a bottom half pick. But Tampa has to wait up to two years to get that pick. They're gambling on where that pick will be in exchange for waiting. I'd call that a bonus in the trade. 

[Gaudette Celly]

31 minutes ago, aGENT said:

But it is just 'some risk'.

Perhaps we are operating on the precept of zero risk permitted, ever...

Edited June 24, 2019 by Hutton Wink

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

That's deadline deals, not really comparable. Usually costs more than a 1st to get a top 4 defenseman for a playoff run, yet PK Subban is worth two 2nd's. 

 

Its more comparable to Calgary trading a 1st for Hamonic I'd say. Getting top 2 line player under contract for a projected mid 1st. From a team that was a borderline playoff team (and ended up outside).

 

If its mid/late then sure its a good price, fair price, but a good price.

Subban isn't what he once was and has a $9m hit.

 

Miller is a better player than Hamonic and only had 2 years left on his deal, not 4.

 

Your assessment is off.

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Perhaps we are operating on the precept of zero risk permitted, ever...

It's baffling  

 

Trades = risk. There's literally no way to get around it.

[Smashian Kassian]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

Myth:  that the Canucks now 'lack leverage' in pursuing a defenseman.

 

First, they have no more or less 'leverage' than they did before a Miller deal.

 

Second - they have cap space, they have an opportunity to offer UFAs and/or add tradeable assets/picks via taking a short term dump - they have signficant minutes,  potentially with a young talent like Hughes to offer UFAs - they have expendable secondary forward assets, prospects, picks if they elect to target a mid-range trade (or even a higher range trade) - and there are numerous viable veteran options in both the mid range free agent market (where 'leverage' is literally irrelevent) and probably the trade market (ie secondary options like Dillon would be entirely sufficient at this stage).

 

This 'lack of leverage' story is entirely contrived.

 

Your right. Its not leverage the Canucks lack, its assets.

 

And as far as leverage goes, Jim has already demonstrated a willingness to pay a premium if he wants a player, whether it be trade or Free Agency, so this trade changes nothing on the leverage front.

 

Pursuing a D man via trade is going to be hard unless they can capitalize on another team, although some of those deals have already happened. I doubt they're interested in taking a 'cap dump' to facilitate a trade. The idea of weaponizing cap space has been discussed to death, & it just doesn't seem to be in their wheelhouse. Other than that assets are scarce. Hutton's no longer an asset, I guess that leaves Jake Virtanen & prospects/picks.

 

As far as the UFA market is concerned, they'll have to pay a premium for any of the top guys. Tyler Myers is going to get a big contract from someone, as is Jake Gardiner. Our guy seems to be Myers but he won't be coming here on a sweetheart deal that's for sure. 

[Phat Fingers]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

The. If point you are entirely ignoring, even though you are typing it is that 1st round picks ARE overvalued.  GMs value them very highly... so you should be able to extract a lot of value for one... 

 

We didn’t and the big consensus from pundits outside both markets is that Tampa got great value for a move that they had to make.

 

You can’t just choose to take the trade in isolation and not consider the full picture and the opportunity cost of not being able to make another move because the asset has now been traded away.  If you can get player A for an asset, or a better player B for that same asset, you are suggesting that is entirely irrelevant.

 

The other thing you can’t take in isolation is the situation.  Tampa was risking not being able to sign Point, or even having him offer sheeted.  This trade removed that issue from them entirely.  You suggest Tampa is taking all the risk, and that couldn’t be further from the truth.  Tampa removed a crap ton of risk in freeing up the cap space, and return at all for that is gravy and not a risk at all. 

Provost.

 

 

IMO you are also viewing this deal in isolation.  There seems to be an assumption that Tampa only talked to Vancouver and that the other 30 teams all passed on Miller.  

 

That assumes that no one wanted a 26 y/o on a 4 year contract that plays all 3 forward spots,, good in the dot, good two way guy, 3 x 20 goal scorer, 218lbs and has played 82games in 4 straight years.

 

The first is because the only other assets in the deal are a 3rd and our 5th string goalie.

 

Do you think no other team wanted JT?  Tampa wasnt taking salary back.  This isnt the Marleau deal.

 

The pick isnt likely to be as high as this years.  JT would greatly improve our top 6.  

 

Our team is getting better and JB is going to build around EP40.

 

Other teams are in steep decline.  LA, Chi and Det are all now bottom feeders, Min is dropping, Edm still sucks etc...

 

Getting a top 1O pick out of us in 2 years is very unlikely.  

 

I would trade a mid to late 1st to get a Bo 2.0 player...  wouldn't you?  

Edited June 24, 2019 by Phat Fingers

[Gurn]

The guy fills a current hole, is a former first, 15th overall, has scored 22 or more goals a three of times plays physical, can take draws, plays any forward position, is only 26 years old.

Cost  was a protected 1st, likely to be in the 10-15 range, a third and a goalie that would have trouble making our echl team.

 

I'm ok with the trade.

Now get to work on the D.

Edited June 24, 2019 by gurn