J.T. Miller | #9 | C/W

[Boudrias]

IMHO the Canucks have to have a 'drop dead' date on these contracts. No contract and Rutherford has to move them. 

[Provost]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

IMHO the Canucks have to have a 'drop dead' date on these contracts. No contract and Rutherford has to move them. 

That is exactly it.  The last management group was terrible at using any pressure at all and kept getting the clock run out so they were backed into a corner giving the agents all the leverage.  Benning got tunnel vision and then had to scramble so he wasn't left with nothing (which he sometimes was anyways).  Spending all his time on Markstrom/OEL two offseasons ago pissed off the players who didn't get any attention or offers.  Leaving Virtanen until we had to qualify him meant we had to keep money aside for what could be a high arbitration award.

Boeser has the ability to sign an extension now.  Put a long term offer on the table for him in the $6.5 million range give or take a little, and tell him that we will have to try to move him at the deadline if that isn't an offer he is willing to take.  Don't wait and then have to qualify him, then be handcuffed on other moves not knowing what an arbitration number might turn out to be.

Horvat is the team captain and really valuable to us, Rutherford needs to be negotiating what an extension would look like and have pen to paper the moment Horvat is eligible or again say that we have to consider trading him before next season.  That gives us the leverage as there will be a lot of teams that miss out on their target on July1st and will be scrambling to fill their rosters.  Waiting until after next season means Horvat's agent has all the leverage again as we can't afford to lose him for nothing to UFA.

Miller is the toughest decision.  We can't extend him yet, he is likely going to cost us more than we can/should pay on the open market.  He can probably easily fetch an $8 million, 6 year contract from some team.  Us spending that money/term on a guy who will already be 30 by the time the contract starts is just a bad idea.  The only question to me is whether we are in a position to trade him at the deadline or after the season.  His value will be more at the deadline as a team gets two playoff runs out of his current contract.
 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[komodo0921]

On 1/1/2022 at 11:00 AM, Attila Umbrus said:

Well said DLC, we need to push forward with this group and quit the mass tinkering of the line up. We can't have shiny new toys every damn year and expect things to gel year after year. We need this TEAM to start brewing together and build off that.

 

Only way I see Miller going is if he doesn't want to re-sign in Van. I don't think any player on the team would begrudge him of that because of him being an American and having the complications of restrictions by government in the way of seeing his family when he wants. So I could see him wanting to sign with an American team just based on that. If he does go i'm sure it's more to do with this fact than anything else. I don't blame him and neither will the players (i'm sure), and in return, a kings ransom...but first and foremost we TRY hard to get him signed IMO. We need him on this team. 

I can see more ways.

- Pricing himself out of this market.

-Wanting too much term on his next contract.

- Decline in play and production.

These three factors must also be considered, now that he's well into the second half of his career. Caution must be taken when evaluating his worth to the Canucks. 

JT Miller will be 30 when his contract is up for renegotiation. 

Right now, he's a 70-80 point player in the NHL but; For how long?

Normally, I think 33 is the threshold where good players start to decline. Miller, however, keeps himself in great shape and has, to this point, avoided serious injury and shows great durability. Imo, Miller's decline will be pushed back. I see his decline at 34. 

4x 8 mil is a comfort zone for me, provided factors presented by you are surmountable.

If he wants 9 mil and won't budge or wants more term at an unrealistic number, such as 8 mil for 6,7, or 8 years, I feel, at that point, he's gotta go. 

Vancouver management has wasted way too much money overpaying players in a futile attempt to fast-forward the rebuild. Because of this, we are a bottom third team with a bloated cap. Management must be willing to walk away from any player who is wanting unfair and unrealistic compensation for what they bring to the table, no exceptions.

The good news is, I think we have a pretty good Manager in JR. He has the experience and confidence to walk away from unfavorable situations. I also think he'll have the foresight to know what Miller's camp will be expecting by this off season and make a difinitive decision on JTM's future in Vancity. 

The same can be said for Horvat and I think he's already made up his mind on Boeser.

[appleboy]

IF, and it is a big if. If they decide that there needs to be some player movement to restructure this club. They need to move players who are at their highest value for their career. 

JT may never be worth more than he is right now.

They will need to decide if he is worth more to us over the next few years or the assets he can bring.

[MeanSeanBean]

12 minutes ago, appleboy said:

IF, and it is a big if. If they decide that there needs to be some player movement to restructure this club. They need to move players who are at their highest value for their career. 

JT may never be worth more than he is right now.

They will need to decide if he is worth more to us over the next few years or the assets he can bring.

Man, I'd argue he could currently have one of the highest values of a moveable player in the league. His point production, mixed with his style of play and his cap hit is something any contending team should be lining up for. Love JT, but imo, we need to build a defense. Trading Miller is likely our best opportunity to do that.

[Putgolzin]

33 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

Man, I'd argue he could currently have one of the highest values of a moveable player in the league. His point production, mixed with his style of play and his cap hit is something any contending team should be lining up for. Love JT, but imo, we need to build a defense. Trading Miller is likely our best opportunity to do that.

I agree with all of this.

We could get so much for him at this deadline - there'd be a huge bidding war netting us even more than he's worth (which is a tonne obviously).

I still wouldn't want to do it.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Putgolzin

[Coconuts]

25 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

Man, I'd argue he could currently have one of the highest values of a moveable player in the league. His point production, mixed with his style of play and his cap hit is something any contending team should be lining up for. Love JT, but imo, we need to build a defense. Trading Miller is likely our best opportunity to do that.

Yup. If JR and co want to make the team younger, work on filling holes in the roster, and clear out cap space than Miller is without a doubt their best trade chip. I'm fully on board with moving him.

[Nucker 67]

Would suck to lose Miller and that passion, his production, but the Canucks would get a really nice return for him. Imagine having a Braden Schneider paired with Hughes or Rathbone one day or Chytil centering the 3rd line, and extra picks. 

 

I'm all for the Canucks improving and one day winning a Cup, and trading Miller may be a first step in doing that.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Regarding the "trade Miller to upgrade at RD" narrative that litters this board:

Interesting to hear Boudreau's pre-game media availability this morning, in which he was asked to assess the team.  His answer was that they play pretty good defense but aren't a high octane offensive group.  The numbers back this view up.  We'll see whether Rutherford agrees, but I bet him and Boudreau have been discussing it and that he's not speaking just for himself.  

So if this is indeed an emerging management consensus about the team, does it sound as through they are going to voluntarily move their best offensive player?  Not to me.  Does it sound like they think the team's salary structure needs to be "rebalanced" even further towards our D when they are already one of the most expensive D corps in the league?  Not to me.

None of this addresses the question of whether JT will want to re-sign here or do so on terms that the club can live with.  But it does suggest that they aren't about to underestimate his value to the club or deal him for a package of lesser assets like Schneider, Chytl, etc.  Just remember:  whoever gets the best player typically wins the trade.  How likely is that for us if we deal Miller?  Not very.  Yes, it could happen, but probably only if management decides they have no choice.  For that reason, I doubt very much they move him at this year's deadline or even during the next 12 months.

[TGT68]

Seeing talk that the Rangers are interested in acquiring Miller.  Talk of several high end pieces.  

 

Dumping our top offensive player would not be so much the concept here.  But getting younger and extending the window of the group might be a good idea.  The Rangers have some interesting pieces.  Seeing draft picks being the core of the proposals.  I would think developing players would more be our ask.  

Edited January 18, 2022 by TGT68
Sp correction

[MeanSeanBean]

3 hours ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Regarding the "trade Miller to upgrade at RD" narrative that litters this board:

Interesting to hear Boudreau's pre-game media availability this morning, in which he was asked to assess the team.  His answer was that they play pretty good defense but aren't a high octane offensive group.  The numbers back this view up.  We'll see whether Rutherford agrees, but I bet him and Boudreau have been discussing it and that he's not speaking just for himself.  

So if this is indeed an emerging management consensus about the team, does it sound as through they are going to voluntarily move their best offensive player?  Not to me.  Does it sound like they think the team's salary structure needs to be "rebalanced" even further towards our D when they are already one of the most expensive D corps in the league?  Not to me.

None of this addresses the question of whether JT will want to re-sign here or do so on terms that the club can live with.  But it does suggest that they aren't about to underestimate his value to the club or deal him for a package of lesser assets like Schneider, Chytl, etc.  Just remember:  whoever gets the best player typically wins the trade.  How likely is that for us if we deal Miller?  Not very.  Yes, it could happen, but probably only if management decides they have no choice.  For that reason, I doubt very much they move him at this year's deadline or even during the next 12 months.

Yes, the winner of the trade is almost always who gets the best player. But, what of the best player has no intentions on staying with the team. JT is a Canuck for this year and next. Realistically, he's going to be on the decline in the next handful of years. Dude is gonna want a cup, and get paid. If he even wants to resign with us, what's the cost. Is that cost worth loosing Boeser or another young player. Miller is looking at a huge raise, at 30 years old. Dudes the heart of our team right now, but I don't think I want to be giving him 7 or 8 million until he's 36. We have done this dance before.

 

 

[Maniwaki Canuck]

2 hours ago, TGT68 said:

Seeing talk that the Rangers are interested in acquiring Miller.  Talk of several high end pieces.  

 

Dumping our top offensive player would not be so much the concept here.  But getting younger and extending the window of the group might be a good idea.  The Rangers have some interesting pieces.  Seeing draft picks being the core of the proposals.  I would think developing players would more be our ask.  

Dumping our top offensive player might not be the concept but it would be the reality, with all the knock on effects that could follow.  For example, how do we plan on winning games with an even weaker offense than we have now?  Does Bo want to re-sign if we're still resetting/rebuilding?   Etc., etc.  If re-signing Miller isn't a realistic possibility of course we have to deal him.  But I don't think management is going to do that if there's a decent chance of retaining him and I wouldn't expect to win any trade that might happen.  Finding a trade partner willing to surrender a couple of top developing players isn't going to be easy. 

[aGENT]

5 hours ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Regarding the "trade Miller to upgrade at RD" narrative that litters this board:

Interesting to hear Boudreau's pre-game media availability this morning, in which he was asked to assess the team.  His answer was that they play pretty good defense but aren't a high octane offensive group.  The numbers back this view up.  We'll see whether Rutherford agrees, but I bet him and Boudreau have been discussing it and that he's not speaking just for himself.  

They've also frequently discussed needing additional puck moving D on our back end (and getting younger and faster). Offense isn't solely created by forwards.

 

Never mind completely ignoring any succession plan for soon to be expiring Myers and Hamonic.

 

5 hours ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

So if this is indeed an emerging management consensus about the team, does it sound as through they are going to voluntarily move their best offensive player?  Not to me.  Does it sound like they think the team's salary structure needs to be "rebalanced" even further towards our D when they are already one of the most expensive D corps in the league?  Not to me.

Most of the proposals are for guys like Schneider who's currently on a $925 base/$1.325 (potential bonuses) AAV, ELC. 

 

5 hours ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

None of this addresses the question of whether JT will want to re-sign here or do so on terms that the club can live with.  But it does suggest that they aren't about to underestimate his value to the club or deal him for a package of lesser assets like Schneider, Chytl, etc.  Just remember:  whoever gets the best player typically wins the trade.  How likely is that for us if we deal Miller?  Not very.  Yes, it could happen, but probably only if management decides they have no choice.  For that reason, I doubt very much they move him at this year's deadline or even during the next 12 months.

Depends on how you define 'win'. Miller is certainly the best player now. Will he still be that in 4 years? Does that factor in the cap we save to shore up other areas/keep other younger core players? The multiplication of assets? Getting younger and faster? Not getting saddled with an $8m+ contract for a mid 30's player in the meat of our core's prime? Aiming to be more competitive in 2+ years during our core's actual prime?

 

1 hour ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Dumping our top offensive player might not be the concept but it would be the reality, with all the knock on effects that could follow.  For example, how do we plan on winning games with an even weaker offense than we have now?  Does Bo want to re-sign if we're still resetting/rebuilding?   Etc., etc.  If re-signing Miller isn't a realistic possibility of course we have to deal him.  But I don't think management is going to do that if there's a decent chance of retaining him and I wouldn't expect to win any trade that might happen. 

 

See above. It's not as simple as JT is good = we keep JT. And yes, we may very well be a slightly worse team if we move Miller in the the very near term. It's not about the near term, it's about maximizing our chances at a cup in +/- 2-7 years. Hopefully Bo sees that and sticks around to see the fruit of these moves, should we make them. But if not, we best be moving him for assets as well. It's business.

 

1 hour ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Finding a trade partner willing to surrender a couple of top developing players isn't going to be easy. 

He's a top 10-15 F in the league, in his prime, that plays all F positions, all situations, and is on a good contract for two more playoff runs. All the reasons you'd like to keep him are the same reasons he has LOADS of trade value to a team ready to compete NOW. The Rangers are already reportedly exploring numerous high value assets. I don't think it would be hard at all actually.

[TGT68]

If we trade Miller I am not looking for a first and a third and Chytil though.  

 

Miller for Lafreniere and Schneider?  

 

That sounds more like what I would do.  

[aGENT]

15 minutes ago, TGT68 said:

If we trade Miller I am not looking for a first and a third and Chytil though.  

 

Miller for Lafreniere and Schneider?  

 

That sounds more like what I would do.  

Chytil, Schneider and a 1st, at minimum. I think we can potentially get more than that. Particularly if we retain.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

They've also frequently discussed needing additional puck moving D on our back end (and getting younger and faster). Offense isn't solely created by forwards.

 

Never mind completely ignoring any succession plan for soon to be expiring Myers and Hamonic.

 

Most of the proposals are for guys like Schneider who's currently on a $925 base/$1.325 (potential bonuses) AAV, ELC. 

 

Depends on how you define 'win'. Miller is certainly the best player now. Will he still be that in 4 years? Does that factor in the cap we save to shore up other areas/keep other younger core players? The multiplication of assets? Getting younger and faster? Not getting saddled with an $8m+ contract for a mid 30's player in the meat of our core's prime? Aiming to be more competitive in 2+ years during our core's actual prime?

 

See above. It's not as simple as JT is good = we keep JT. And yes, we may very well be a slightly worse team if we move Miller in the the very near term. It's not about the near term, it's about maximizing our chances at a cup in +/- 2-7 years. Hopefully Bo sees that and sticks around to see the fruit of these moves, should we make them. But if not, we best be moving him for assets as well. It's business.

 

He's a top 10-15 F in the league, in his prime, that plays all F positions, all situations, and is on a good contract for two more playoff runs. All the reasons you'd like to keep him are the same reasons he has LOADS of trade value to a team ready to compete NOW. The Rangers are already reportedly exploring numerous high value assets. I don't think it would be hard at all actually.

We've been around the block on this a few times, so I'm going to be selective and not respond to the red herrings, the points I've already agreed with or the blah blah blah about how old Miller is.  Yes we'll need to replace Myers, Schenn and Hamonic before long, but not before they're actually gone, so unless you move 1-2 of them out with Miller, we're overloading at RD where we already have lots of NHL depth.   Hamonic has an NTC and Myers will be hard to move at his salary so unless we can move Poolman, we'll be sitting an RD who deserves to play.  This is a bad idea since we already spend way more on our D than just about any team.

No argument about Miller's value, but how many contenders are going to have, let alone be willing to give up, the good young players we'd want in return?  The Rangers are one of only a few clubs that could do it.  If you need a bidding war to drive the price up, it may not happen, particularly at the deadline when cap space is scarce and teams rarely do radical surgery on their lineups. 

The basic issue, though, is the assumption that our D is suspect and our forwards are an area of strength, which gets repeated here endlessly and by the pundits.  It ain't necessarily so. 

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

We've been around the block on this a few times, so I'm going to be selective and not respond to the red herrings, the points I've already agreed with or the blah blah blah about how old Miller is.  Yes we'll need to replace Myers, Schenn and Hamonic before long, but not before they're actually gone, so unless you move 1-2 of them out with Miller, we're overloading at RD where we already have lots of NHL depth.   Hamonic has an NTC and Myers will be hard to move at his salary so unless we can move Poolman, we'll be sitting an RD who deserves to play. 

No reason Schneider can't spend some time in Abbotsford, he's been on the Rangers minor club most of the year.  And Hamonic has basically been MIA all season. We only have RD depth on paper. And most of it mediocre. And as much as you like to sweep it under the rug, we DO need a succession plan there. Otherwise, sure move Poolman (or even better, Hamonic if we can).

 

6 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

No argument about Miller's value, but how many contenders are going to have, let alone be willing to give up, the good young players we'd want in return?  The Rangers are one of only a few clubs that could do it.  If you need a bidding war to drive the price up, it may not happen, particularly at the deadline when cap space is scarce and teams rarely do radical surgery on their lineups. 

 

There's plenty of teams with deep pools that could potentially, happily add Miller.  Particularly back east. But I like the Rangers fit the best, for both teams.

 

6 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

The basic issue, though, is the assumption that our D is suspect and our forwards are an area of strength, which gets repeated here endlessly and by the pundits.  It ain't necessarily so. 

It kind of is though. You'll note they said we're suspect creating offense, offense isn't only generated from forwards. Our D are subpar at that minus Hughes. They're both on record taking about that too.

[Rindiculous]

7 hours ago, Shayster007 said:

Yes, the winner of the trade is almost always who gets the best player. But, what of the best player has no intentions on staying with the team. JT is a Canuck for this year and next. Realistically, he's going to be on the decline in the next handful of years. Dude is gonna want a cup, and get paid. If he even wants to resign with us, what's the cost. Is that cost worth loosing Boeser or another young player. Miller is looking at a huge raise, at 30 years old. Dudes the heart of our team right now, but I don't think I want to be giving him 7 or 8 million until he's 36. We have done this dance before.

 

 

Resigning Miller will mean losing guys like Pearson, Hamonic, Hoglander and/or Poolman before a guy like Boeser.  There is absolutely no way resigning Miller will mean we lose one of our top 4 forwards.