[Rumour] J.T. Miller Trade/Contract Talks

[Gurn]

1 minute ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

I don't agree. I see a certain amount of posters who argue that we need to trade him no matter what, because our "window" isn't for another X amount of years, and that the late 1st round pick we get from the trade and the prospect etc... will be ready by then. 

 

Fine, but are they not balanced by the people that say keep Miller at any cost and term as he deserves it?

I'd say yes.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

Given the current market I question whether even Pearson wouldn't require a sweetener at this point though, he's also got a modified NTC this coming season so he can submit a list of seven teams he won't go to. He ain't going to Arizona. 

 

Dickinson would absolutely require a sweetener to move.

 

Miller would require no sweetener, so we wouldn't have to give up assets to potentially keep cap space. 

true, we'd have to pay to shed DickiePears. But we may have no choice even with a Miller trade.

[Coconuts]

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

true, we'd have to pay to shed DickiePears. But we may have no choice even with a Miller trade.

The difference is Miller will bring in a net positive return, Dickinson would require us giving up assets which is something we're not in a position to do. 

 

As a team with an already shallow prospect pool we can't afford to be giving up picks and prospects at this junction. 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

The difference is Miller will bring in a net positive return, Dickinson would require us giving up assets which is something we're not in a position to do. 

 

As a team with an already shallow prospect pool we can't afford to be giving up picks and prospects at this junction. 

Can we really put all that on a Miller deal tho? Good roster players, prospects and picks back? Is Miller the guy you trade just for cap and prospects? 

 

I think we're trying to fix too much with one player. 

[Coconuts]

8 minutes ago, JM_ said:

Can we really put all that on a Miller deal tho? Good roster players, prospects and picks back? Is Miller the guy you trade just for cap and prospects? 

 

I think we're trying to fix too much with one player. 

I suppose the answer to your question boils down to how much you personally value cap space and picks/prospects?

 

I don't see them as a bad return, picks and prospects are exactly what we need to rebuild our prospect pool. We'll need players stepping in on ELC's sooner than later, we'll need players to step in and be the young guns once Hughes, Pettersson, Podz, ect are the guys driving this team as prime aged players or vets. Given I think our window is at least four years out I see getting youth back, be that via known and drafted quantities or draft picks, as a perfectly acceptable return. 

 

Cap space in itself is also a net positive asset, which shouldn't be understated. We've seen it since Covid put a damper on the cap, cap flexibility is a huge advantage whether that's via having open cap space or staggering who expires when effectively. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Coconuts

[Gawdzukes]

34 minutes ago, JM_ said:

see, why is this part necessary?

 

If a Miller trade doesn't solve the defensive issues, why make it? We have a great goalie, and Rutherford seems to think he's put out a better F group. 

 

Why does a Miller trade have to be the way the d is improved? 

I'am just generally curious if the Miller crowd doesn't see any of the same problems I see when I watch, or like the last poster it actually explains a lot if one doesn't watch the games.

 

A Miller trade gets made because it makes our team better when it matters. It doesn't have to be the way the D is improved. No reason to limit oneself unnecessarily.

[204CanucksFan]

39 minutes ago, JM_ said:

maybe. 

 

I just see other options like moving Pearson and Dickie, e.g., that creates cap room as well. 

It's not just about creating cap room. Pearson and Dickie might get you a 3rd pairing dman in return. Gotta spend money to make money or on this case trade talent to get talent back.

 

The best way to get the type of talent on our RD that can help push us to the next level is to trade our best chip from our biggest strength.

Edited August 10, 2022 by 204CanucksFan

[Gawdzukes]

35 minutes ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

I think retaining Miller is a reasonable thing to do. They aren't mutually exclusive ideas. 

 

30 minutes ago, gurn said:

Every one thinks keeping Miller is a good idea, the problem is keeping Miller at large cap and a long term is not a good idea.

 

Miller at $5 mill for 5 years and almost everyone says yes.

Miller at $9.5 for 8 years and most say no

Yup, salary, cap space, and timeline simply to do not match up.

[DeNiro]

39 minutes ago, gurn said:

Every one thinks keeping Miller is a good idea, the problem is keeping Miller at large cap and a long term is not a good idea.

 

Miller at $5 mill for 5 years and almost everyone says yes.

Miller at $9.5 for 8 years and most say no

I think most reasonable people agree that if you can keep him for a number that makes sense it’s a good idea.

 

9.5 mil over 8 years doesn’t make sense. If Miller isn’t willing to budge on that then a trade is the only route.

 

I think there’s a path for both sides to get a deal done and it’s likely either an 8.5x6 or a 8x7. Both are fair offers for both sides.

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

I think there’s a path for both sides to get a deal done and it’s likely either an 8.5x6 or a 8x7. Both are fair offers for both sides.

If I'm the GM- I don't offer, or sign any deal with Miller for more than 5 years

[JM_]

28 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I suppose the answer to your question boils down to how much you personally value cap space and picks/prospects?

 

I don't see them as a bad return, picks and prospects are exactly what we need to rebuild our prospect pool. We'll need players stepping in on ELC's sooner than later, we'll need players to step in and be the young guns once Hughes, Pettersson, Podz, ect are the guys driving this team as prime aged players or vets. Given I think our window is at least four years out I see getting youth back, be that via known and drafted quantities or draft picks, as a perfectly acceptable return. 

 

Cap space in itself is also a net positive asset, which shouldn't be understated. We've seen it since Covid put a damper on the cap, cap flexibility is a huge advantage whether that's via having open cap space or staggering who expires when effectively. 

yep that all makes sense, really the only thing we see different I think is when the window is 

[JM_]

25 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

I'am just generally curious if the Miller crowd doesn't see any of the same problems I see when I watch, or like the last poster it actually explains a lot if one doesn't watch the games.

 

A Miller trade gets made because it makes our team better when it matters. It doesn't have to be the way the D is improved. No reason to limit oneself unnecessarily.

If it did make a dramatic improvement on the right side d, its hard to argue.

 

I think most people do see where the biggest issue is, its just not necessarily tied to Miller as the way to fix it. 

[DeNiro]

8 minutes ago, gurn said:

If I'm the GM- I don't offer, or sign any deal with Miller for more than 5 years

But then that’s not meeting in the middle.

 

Its a give and take and both sides need to be willing to move on their original position.

 

6 years isn’t ideal but if it gets it done at a reasonable cap hit then it’s a good deal

[Gawdzukes]

21 minutes ago, JM_ said:

If it did make a dramatic improvement on the right side d, its hard to argue.

 

I think most people do see where the biggest issue is, its just not necessarily tied to Miller as the way to fix it. 

No, but I don't think it's reasonable to pay him 9 million a year to watch us figure out how to do that with the extra bonus of us being 9 million short on the cap. It just makes it that much harder to do.

 

It's also the entire right side RD that needs remaking. We've seen how hard it is to find one let alone 3. Who knows how long that will take. Could be next year could be 3 or 4 years out at this rate. That makes signing Miller very risky value wise. Not only does it take away money that could be used to sign those players, it takes away assets to find those players, or other players when Miller is older and not performing up to his contract.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Gawdzukes

[Gurn]

4 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

But then that’s not meeting in the middle.

 

Its a give and take and both sides need to be willing to move on their original position.

 

6 years isn’t ideal but if it gets it done at a reasonable cap hit then it’s a good deal

Not for me- no more than 5 years, unless he is getting $6 per.

 

I'm not going to sign a older guy, that had a career year, to a long term expensive contract.

The years after the next 3, likely good years with Miller, are important too.

 

Meeting in the middle is a poor way to negotiate.

3rd line player walks in and asks for 8 years at max cap, do you wish to meet that, in the middle?

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by gurn

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

No, but I don't think it's reasonable to pay him 9 million a year to watch us figure out how to do that with the extra bonus of us being 9 million short on the cap. It just makes it that much harder to do.

we'll see what the final number really is, with us or elsewhere. I don't think it reaches the 9s. 

 

We have cap space opening up in 2 seasons even if we do nothing with Myers, Dickie and Pearson gone. Maybe we move Garland for picks too between now and then. 

 

Lots of ways this could go. 

[HorvatToBaertschi]

49 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

Yup, salary, cap space, and timeline simply to do not match up.

How does the timeline not match up? He is barely 2 years older than our captain. You don't win cups with only young players. You need a mix of vets and young stars.

Let's look at cup contenders and their star players currently older or the same age as Miller;

 

Tampa - Kucherov, Stamkos, Hedman 

St Louis - OReilly, Tarasenko

Colorado - Landeskog, Kadri (leaving colorado but they just won the cup with him)

New York Rangers - Panarin, Kreider

Washington - Ovechkin, Kuznestov, Backstrom, Orlov

Pittsburgh - Letang, Malkin, Crosby, Rust

Florida - Hornqvist, Huberdeau (this past season)

Toronto (ew) - Reilley, Tavares

 

These are the models we are looking to replicate. The model it seems you want to replicate is one of perpetual lottery teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, Arizona, Ottawa etc... Teams that bet everything on young players developing perfectly without any insulation and no buffer, thrown to the wolves with no mentorship and no experience, who eventually make the playoffs and then get embarrassed because they aren't used to the style of play. 

Look at our bubble season; thank God we had Pearson, Toffoli, Miller, Tanev....

 

You need a bit of everything to make a run for the stanley cup. Miller has already proven he is our 2nd most valuable player after Demko. He will keep that up for a majority of his contract. I personally don't want to cheap out on a maybe or two when we have a proven star who's shown us what he can do in the playoffs already. AND HE'S HUNGRY. The hungriest of our bunch. 

 

The odds a Duchene or Karlsson style trade is going to be made for Miller are so slim, I'd rather just move on and get pumped for a season lead by our best forward, and the best forward we've had on the team since the prime Sedin era.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by HorvatToBaertschi

[Gawdzukes]

16 minutes ago, JM_ said:

we'll see what the final number really is, with us or elsewhere. I don't think it reaches the 9s. 

 

We have cap space opening up in 2 seasons even if we do nothing with Myers, Dickie and Pearson gone. Maybe we move Garland for picks too between now and then. 

 

Lots of ways this could go. 

Yeah true. It would be nice to have extra cash next year though to start this process and then get the Myers money the following year. Regardless it could be a tricky situation which is why I don't see any value investing in Miller right now. We could still be spinning our wheels for a couple years.

[JM_]

Just now, Gawdzukes said:

Yeah true. It would be nice to have extra cash next year though to start this process and then get the Myers money the following year. Regardless it could be a tricky situation which is why I don't see any value investing in Miller right now. We could still be spinning our wheels for a couple years.

we'd be building that playoff experience tho. No need to put that off, imo.

 

Man Jimbo left us in a pickle, with some shite choices to have to make. 

[DeNiro]

38 minutes ago, gurn said:

Not for me- no more than 5 years, unless he is getting $6 per.

 

I'm not going to sign a older guy, that had a career year, to a long term expensive contract.

The years after the next 3, likely good years with Miller, are important too.

 

Meeting in the middle is a poor way to negotiate.

3rd line player walks in and asks for 8 years at max cap, do you wish to meet that, in the middle?

 

I mean that’s kind of a bad example. Third liners are a dime a dozen. Impact players that win you games like Miller are much harder to come by and therefore have much more leverage.

 

Unfortunately for management Miller and his camp have a lot of leverage so getting them to meet in the middle would be a huge win. They know they can get a big deal next summer so there’s not nearly as much pressure on them.