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

[iinatcc]

22 hours ago, CanuckCup2022 said:

Just read the first 10 pages of this thread. Haha...good for a laugh.  Some awful awful takes on the trade.

 

Do people not learn you should not be soooooo tied down to a hardcore opinion minutes after a blockbuster NHL trade is made?

 

Edit: one poster on page 1 did not want to trade more than a 5th?  haha...good god!

Well let's be fair a lot of hockey analysts and experts also felt Vancouver paid too steep of a price for Miller. It was a huge gamble ... and, to Bennings credit, the gamble has paid off.

[Tower102]

4 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Well let's be fair a lot of hockey analysts and experts also felt Vancouver paid too steep of a price for Miller. It was a huge gamble ... and, to Bennings credit, the gamble has paid off.

True, but those hockey analysts always say that Benning has paid too much, regardless of the trade. I agree though, few could have predicted it would turn out this well for Vancouver. 

[oldnews]

On 8/12/2020 at 2:14 PM, BlastPast said:

Great thread to look back and see who the idiots are...and who the non-idiots are. ^^^  Did anyone learn a lesson about not overreacting ? Anyone realize they might not know wtf they are talking about and should maybe just refrain from having strong opinions until a situation has fully developed ? Didn't think so. 

 

 

I don't know.

There's been a lot of these threads.

The market blew a head gasket when Hodgson was dealt.

The market was angry and disappointed with the Kesler return.  And nearly every subsequent offshoot of that deal since - which has essentially brought Pearson and Sutter.

The market lost their mind when Shinkaruk was traded.

The market went full drama queen when Vanek returned Motte as opposed to a late pick.

And, of course,  it went fullly reactionary over this MIller deal.

I'm sure I'm missing a number that other's can probably point out - more dramatic over-reactions that were essentially based on being uninformed = usually with very little to no knowledge of the players returning in these deals.

I wish/hope I'm wrong about this, but we seem to have developed a herd immunity to learning.  The knee jerk is strong in here.

 

 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

I don't know.

There's been a lot of these threads.

The market blew a head gasket when Hodgson was dealt.

The market was angry and disappointed with the Kesler return.  And nearly every subsequent offshoot of that deal since - which has essentially brought Pearson and Sutter.

The market lost their mind when Shinkaruk was traded.

The market went full drama queen when Vanek returned Motte as opposed to a late pick.

And, of course,  it went fullly reactionary over this MIller deal.

I'm sure I'm missing a number that other's can probably point out - more dramatic over-reactions that were essentially based on being uninformed = usually with very little to no knowledge of the players returning in these deals.

I wish/hope I'm wrong about this, but we seem to have developed a herd immunity to learning.  The knee jerk is strong in here.

 

 

 

part of it imo is the stupid media driven idea that someone has to "win" a trade. It can't simply be good value both ways and have actual market conditions setting prices, no, someone must be the loser in it. 

 

I'd agree that trading too many 2nd round picks for tweeners during the re-jig/re-tool thing for the first few years wasn't a great idea but outside of that Jims trades have been a clear net benefit to the team. 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Robert Long

[Baggins]

22 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Well let's be fair a lot of hockey analysts and experts also felt Vancouver paid too steep of a price for Miller. It was a huge gamble ... and, to Bennings credit, the gamble has paid off.

There were "experts" arguing we overpaid because Tampa was cap strapped rather than being too much for Miller the player. I saw that as a false narrative in this case. Miller was worth his contract and didn't have an ntc to restrict movement. Were I a GM in need of a quality two way forward I wouldn't let another GM have that player at a bargain price knowing he's worth more to me. That would be plain stupid. I'd absolutely be willing to make offers up to full value for that player to improve my team. I have no doubt a few GM's kicked the tires with bargain offers. But I also have no doubt there were GM's with the view Miller would improve their team and were willing to make real offers. The only way a players trade value is reduced in this situation is if he limits trade partners (ntc) or isn't worth his cap hit/salary or an actual cap dump salary is coming with the player. None of these conditions applied to Miller. So I don't think Benning overpaid, I think Benning paid fair value. Particularly with Tampa having to wait a year, and possibly two, to receive the primary piece in the trade. In hindsight, with the season Miller had, it was a bargain. At the time my view was fair value and not much of a gamble at all. It certainly wasn't a "huge" gamble. Honestly, if you get a player like Miller (prior to this years performance), in the bottom half of the first round it's a win. Not a huge win, but a win nonetheless.

[JeremyCuddles]

On 8/15/2020 at 1:01 PM, iinatcc said:

Well let's be fair a lot of hockey analysts and experts also felt Vancouver paid too steep of a price for Miller. It was a huge gamble ... and, to Bennings credit, the gamble has paid off.

They only said we paid too much cause they were going with the "cap dump" narrative when Miller was anything but a true cap dump. For a top 6 center, 26 years old, making 5.25mil over 4 years a 1st and 3rd rounder is chump change. There for sure would have been a market for Miller's services. Look what Coleman got and he only has one more year on his contract. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Miller's been an absolute, F***in' GEM! Bet the team released that pump up/startin roster vid as a special ty & cheers to JT, as well as an exclamation point on this grand theft larceny.

[oldnews]

10 pts in 9 playoff games for a guy that was reportedly not a playoff performer.....

 

7 of them in 5 games against the defending Stanley Cup Champions.

 

 

 

[peaches5]

On 8/16/2020 at 2:38 PM, N7Nucks said:

They only said we paid too much cause they were going with the "cap dump" narrative when Miller was anything but a true cap dump. For a top 6 center, 26 years old, making 5.25mil over 4 years a 1st and 3rd rounder is chump change. There for sure would have been a market for Miller's services. Look what Coleman got and he only has one more year on his contract. 

He absolutely was a cap dump for Tampa. He also was not being used as a top 6 forward in Tampa, he was playing on the third line. For whatever reason Tampa under utilized him and as soon as he came to Vancouver he showed what he could do with top 6 minutes. He had a NTC kicking in and Tampa decided to offload him before it was active. If you look at Tampa's team it doesn't make a lot of sense as to why they traded him. They are all skill and no grit and JT Miller is both that is probably why JB was so thrilled to land him. 

[gerry35]

7 hours ago, oldnews said:

10 pts in 9 playoff games for a guy that was reportedly not a playoff performer.....

 

7 of them in 5 games against the defending Stanley Cup Champions.

 

 

 

Not bad for a "cap dump" and a "third liner" like some on here were screaming. Only an idiot would have not been thrilled with the trade when it happened, once again the media was there pushing the panic and the simple minded believed every word. He is exactly what the team needed, it's almost like Jim knows how to build a team.......

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, peaches5 said:

He absolutely was a cap dump for Tampa. He also was not being used as a top 6 forward in Tampa, he was playing on the third line. For whatever reason Tampa under utilized him and as soon as he came to Vancouver he showed what he could do with top 6 minutes. He had a NTC kicking in and Tampa decided to offload him before it was active. If you look at Tampa's team it doesn't make a lot of sense as to why they traded him. They are all skill and no grit and JT Miller is both that is probably why JB was so thrilled to land him. 

Not all cap dumps are the same, which I think is the point. Say we wanted to dump cap, what's the difference between us trying to dump Eriksson versus say trying to dump Boeser's cap? The quality of the player being "dumped". Tampa "under utilized" him because they are that talented of a team. Benning saw this and targeted him and ensured we got him rather than trying to low ball and potentially miss out or they trade someone else to adjust their cap (and when considering what other trades have been made, this looks like quite a steal now). It was a hockey trade at face value at the time of the deal (which is why Tampa accepted the trade) and everything now on top is just gravy.

 

Even Tampa's management was confused at the twitter reaction to the deal, which frankly was quite an embarrassment to our fanbase. They didn't want to trade Miller, but they got what they felt like was the best deal to unload the cap space they needed to unload.

[Tower102]

 

4 hours ago, peaches5 said:

He absolutely was a cap dump for Tampa. He also was not being used as a top 6 forward in Tampa, he was playing on the third line. For whatever reason Tampa under utilized him and as soon as he came to Vancouver he showed what he could do with top 6 minutes. He had a NTC kicking in and Tampa decided to offload him before it was active. If you look at Tampa's team it doesn't make a lot of sense as to why they traded him. They are all skill and no grit and JT Miller is both that is probably why JB was so thrilled to land him. 

He was traded to create room for the cap but wasn't what we typically refer as a cap dump (ie. Marleau from the Leafs). I am sure TB would have preferred to trade away others like a Johnson or Palat before trading Miller but wouldn't have had the same offers. 

[JeremyCuddles]

4 hours ago, peaches5 said:

He absolutely was a cap dump for Tampa. He also was not being used as a top 6 forward in Tampa, he was playing on the third line. For whatever reason Tampa under utilized him and as soon as he came to Vancouver he showed what he could do with top 6 minutes. He had a NTC kicking in and Tampa decided to offload him before it was active. If you look at Tampa's team it doesn't make a lot of sense as to why they traded him. They are all skill and no grit and JT Miller is both that is probably why JB was so thrilled to land him. 

My point was he wasn't a true cap dump, IE a player playing under his cap hit. He was used more sparingly in TB, particularly the season before he was traded. But he wasn't a true 3rd liner either. He was a 16-18 minute a game player. Of course it doesn't make sense why they traded him. He was a great player, on a great contract. Like I was saying, not a true cap dump. They would love to have dumped Killorn or even Palat before Miller, but there was no market for them. True cap dumps. Although Palat did have a bit of a resurgence this season over last.

 

A lot of us were saying he'd fit right in to our top 6 as soon as the trade happened. I even remember saying this same sh*t when the trade happened that he isn't a cap dump and he isn't a true 3rd liner. Tampa was just stacked out the wazoo and there was no market for their other overpaid players. 

[oldnews]

4 hours ago, peaches5 said:

He absolutely was a cap dump for Tampa.

C'mon peaches - this is just being hard-headed - attempting to re-write the meaning of terms to your own convenience.

 

Cap dumps cost assets to move.  Cap dumps represent negative value. Ie if the Canucks were unable to move Eriksson, and had to move an alternative asset to clear cap - say, for example Tanner Pearson, for cap reasons - that would not make Pearson a "cap dump".  Fundamental and substantial difference.  Particularly when a player's performance has dictated that they are worth their cap hit and then some.  Miller's contract was excellent value - part of the reason any team that wanted him had to pay a reasonable market value - as opposed to alternative assets that Tampa probably would have much preferred to move.

 

The ignorance that flowed so freely at the time of this deal was based on a knee-jerk ignorance of Miller as a player - his value as an 'asset' - with many folks here believing he could be acquired for longshot picks - which was absurd - and the whole 'cap dump' embarrassment was part and parcel of that ignorance - inseparable.  These revisions aren't really honest - people still not owning that they whiffed on evaluating this trade.

[JM_]

10 hours ago, oldnews said:

10 pts in 9 playoff games for a guy that was reportedly not a playoff performer.....

 

7 of them in 5 games against the defending Stanley Cup Champions.

 

 

 

its a great lesson in deployment. Tampa was considered "too deep" to use Miller in the top 6. 

[oldnews]

10 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

its a great lesson in deployment. Tampa was considered "too deep" to use Miller in the top 6. 

That - and he was/iss suited for a dual role.

He's hard to play against.  He's hard on the puck, he is responsible without it (a natural center), he hits, he wins faceoffs - and he could handle 3rd line type minutes. 

He had 47 points, playing 14:40/game of bottom six, sub 50% ozone start minutes.  He had 42 takeaways.  He's come here - and in spite of our "foundation" and serious wealth of defensive forwards (the value of which should not be underplayed) - Miller has continued to provide a secondary pk option - and a guy that you can use late in games to defend leads, win draws, block shots, etc.  A complete player - and a powerforward - an asset that is very difficult to acquire.

I am surprised by nothing - I expected him to play with EP and uptick - with one exception - I did not expect him to come in and be among the top few in the NHL in faceoff percentage - I think it's reasonable to see an uptick when a guy moves to higher ozone starts (where it's easier to win draws) - but I was not expecting 59.2%.  I guess it does not hurt when you come to a place where you can work day in day out against one of the best faceoff guys in the world - (Beagle) - and work with one of the best shutdown centers in the modern NHL (Malhotra).

[peaches5]

25 minutes ago, oldnews said:

C'mon peaches - this is just being hard-headed - attempting to re-write the meaning of terms to your own convenience.

 

Cap dumps cost assets to move.  Cap dumps represent negative value. Ie if the Canucks were unable to move Eriksson, and had to move an alternative asset to clear cap - say, for example Tanner Pearson, for cap reasons - that would not make Pearson a "cap dump".  Fundamental and substantial difference.  Particularly when a player's performance has dictated that they are worth their cap hit and then some.  Miller's contract was excellent value - part of the reason any team that wanted him had to pay a reasonable market value - as opposed to alternative assets that Tampa probably would have much preferred to move.

 

The ignorance that flowed so freely at the time of this deal was based on a knee-jerk ignorance of Miller as a player - his value as an 'asset' - with many folks here believing he could be acquired for longshot picks - which was absurd - and the whole 'cap dump' embarrassment was part and parcel of that ignorance - inseparable.  These revisions aren't really honest - people still not owning that they whiffed on evaluating this trade.

I am not re-writing anything. A cap dump is a player you trade because you are up against the cap. Marleau wouldn't be traded if the leafs weren't cap strapped and neither would JT Miller. Tampa needed to dump cap and JT Miller was the contract they chose to dump. JT Miller having value doesn't magically make it a non cap dump trade. You've defined what cap dump is yourself and now anyone who doesn't see it the way you defined you are calling them hard headed... I disagree with what you've defined as a cap dump. If Pearson is traded because we need to get rid of salary that is a cap dump. Teams will try to offer less in-order to get Pearson.. They will likely be like you've got some cap issues there instead of giving you a 3rd we will give you a 5th. 

 

If you have to move a player because of cap-related problems that is a cap dump trade as far as I am concerned to be clear. 

 

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, peaches5 said:

I am not re-writing anything. A cap dump is a player you trade because you are up against the cap. Marleau wouldn't be traded if the leafs weren't cap strapped and neither would JT Miller. Tampa needed to dump cap and JT Miller was the contract they chose to dump. JT Miller having value doesn't magically make it a non cap dump trade. You've defined what cap dump is yourself and now anyone who doesn't see it the way you defined you are calling them hard headed... I disagree with what you've defined as a cap dump. If Pearson is traded because we need to get rid of salary that is a cap dump. Teams will try to offer less in-order to get Pearson.. They will likely be like you've got some cap issues there instead of giving you a 3rd we will give you a 5th. 

 

If you have to move a player because of cap-related problems that is a cap dump trade as far as I am concerned to be clear. 

 

ok - moving on - and sorry, can't be bothered to read beyond the first line = obvious, obstinate denial.

[peaches5]

16 minutes ago, oldnews said:

ok - moving on - and sorry, can't be bothered to read beyond the first line = obvious, obstinate denial.

There is a word for people like you its called bigot.

[oldnews]

16 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

There is a word for people like you its called bigot.

there are better words than that for people like me.

 

anyhow, I'm moving on to things that aren't as much a waste of time as arguing with people who still have their head in the sand where this deal is concerned.