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

[CaptainLinden16]

8 minutes ago, stawns said:

I think Nashville could be in the mix too.  They've got some nice pieces and cap space.........tomasino would be a nice add as a righty C, as would Prokop

 

tomasino

Prokup

Carrier

2022 1st

 

 

Miller

Woo

Carrier is 5'11 174 pound defenseman.  Not awesome for this team.  The 1st is a late first.  Prokup isn't in the NHL although intriguing.  Tomasino is in the show young.  That's a lot of quantity again.  You have to get something really really solid for your best player.  Something that can play now effectively.  

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Colorado I assume you mean something like Newhook and Byram.  That would be a great deal but from a team building standpoint a big bust.  Another LHD offensive player.  Newhook also seems more redundant than complimentary.  Great young talents no doubt, but we aren't building a better team.  Carolina I am not sure who they would trade off their NHL roster for Miller.  I would be very reluctant to trade a player like Miller for players not even in the NHL.  They don't have a 1st round pick this year.  So I am not sure what you mean....

 

NYR seems like the only viable option for a solid trade right now.  What if they don't really see Miller as that piece to get them over the top?  

I'd actually be aiming for Compher, Newhook Barron and their 23 1st from Colorado.

 

Newhook is hardly redundant.

 

Carolina doesn't really 'need' anything so I doubt they make a strong push for Miller. (It also makes it hard to guess at what their package would be.) But 'theoretically' they could probably give up a guy like Jarvis or Kotkaniemi or maybe even Necas, or Bear on D and have a tonne of prospects as well (and their 23 1st). They have plenty of assets to make a deal. 

 

New York seems the most logical, not the only viable option. They have a clear need for a player like Miller and they have the assets we'd be looking for. There's an easy trade there if both parties can agree, and it likely works out for both. Whether it's Schneider or Lundkvist as the main piece.

 

Even Boston can make something work if they REALLY want to. And if there's a team that should be throwing EVERYTHING at their last gasps... Something like Carlo, Lyssel, Debrusk (cap), their 1st and 2nd for Miller and Poolman (replaces RD depth). 

[CaptainLinden16]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'd actually be aiming for Compher, Newhook Barron and their 23 1st from Colorado.

 

Newhook is hardly redundant.

 

Carolina doesn't really 'need' anything so I doubt they make a strong push for Miller. (It also makes it hard to guess at what their package would be.) But 'theoretically' they could probably give up a guy like Jarvis or Kotkaniemi or maybe even Necas, or Bear on D and have a tonne of prospects as well (and their 23 1st). They have plenty of assets to make a deal. 

 

New York seems the most logical, not the only viable option. They have a clear need for a player like Miller and they have the assets we'd be looking for. There's an easy trade there if both parties can agree, and it likely works out for both. Whether it's Schneider or Lundkvist as the main piece.

 

Even Boston can make something work if they REALLY want to. And if there's a team that should be throwing EVERYTHING at their last gasps... Something like Carlo, Lyssel, Debrusk (cap), their 1st and 2nd for Miller and Poolman (replaces RD depth). 

That Boston trade is the definition of asset management silliness.  That all maybe equates.  But what are we really talking about outside of Carlo.  Even then why would a team heading into the playoffs trade a large defenseman playing 20 minutes a night and 2nd on the time in TOI.  Maybe you are fixing your scoring issues but then you are creating a brand new problem simultaneously.  

 

This is what I mean.  You are going to get offers like late 1st, 2nd, Lysell for Miller.  Quantity...lots of quantity...Maybe it balances out, but it certainly wont make the team better.  It will deflate the room massively to loose your best player for something that will show up MAYBE on the roster in 2-4 years.  By that point your NHL career maybe over...

[flickyoursedin]

As the deadline gets closer and one team makes an upgrade their will probably be more teams sniffing around. Like say Colorado goes for a guy like Giroux you might see a Carolina or a Florida peak in and enter the sweepstakes. In a year where you are a contender you don’t want to be left behind when other teams are making upgrades. While they’re not struggling offensively Miller is a clear upgrade and if retained he’s a huge help this year and next year when they’ll need to get creative with their cap.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

That Boston trade is the definition of asset management silliness.  That all maybe equates.  But what are we really talking about outside of Carlo. 

Lyssel is a good prospect. And Carlo is nothing to sneeze at either.

 

2 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Even then why would a team heading into the playoffs trade a large defenseman playing 20 minutes a night and 2nd on the time in TOI.  Maybe you are fixing your scoring issues but then you are creating a brand new problem simultaneously.  

They might not. But then again, maybe this gives them one last gasp with their aging core? And Poolman, while certainly no Carlo, does replace some minutes on that right side, while they upgrade their F core/get a built in 1C replacement for a very possibly retiring this summer, Bergeron.

 

2 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

 

This is what I mean.  You are going to get offers like late 1st, 2nd, Lysell for Miller.  Quantity...lots of quantity...Maybe it balances out, but it certainly wont make the team better.

The team will likely take a small step back, short term, regardless of who we trade Miller for. Best you accept that now.

 

That's how this works. You give up present certainty for future possibility. You split the asset in hopes that at least one or two of those pieces become something to help you down the line. Nobody is suggesting there's no risk.

 

But IMO there's FAR more risk to extending him, not having any of those assets, and throwing ever more money, desperately clinging to the status quo, that's already proven to no be good enough. And that's BEFORE he starts to decline. And the opportunity costs of having +/-$9m tired up in a declining, mid 30's player.

 

2 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

It will deflate the room massively to loose your best player for something that will show up MAYBE on the roster in 2-4 years.  By that point your NHL career maybe over...

Other than picks, none of the pieces I've mentioned are 2-4 years away. If this team is so fragile that losing Miller is that crushing, we're already doomed. Miller or not.

[CaptainLinden16]

1 hour ago, wai_lai416 said:

Well ya your suggestion of keeping Miller included idea such as keeping all the core players such as ep boeser horvat garland oel hughes demko Miller when clearly those core players ain't good enough or ain't the right mix to work with each other.. ok so you'll prolly say fine keep miller and trade one of the other cores. So what do you expect in a trade for any of the other core players that would make this team competitive immediately within the next couple years? Any core players traded is going to be for prospect and or picks. You likely won't get any player that would likely make an impact right away and will probably be years away. If team aint competitive no chance Miller even think about re signing.

 

Ok so you trade away a boeser or bo or ep.. the team is still struggle next year and likely will be since theres no one replacing those cores in a trade or ufa. Miller decides to not re-sign ok we trade him at the deadline. So instead of having the options to retool having the core mostly intact minus Miller. We likely have to end up going into a full rebuild since you traded away 2 or more of your top 6 core. Moving Miller now gives u the option to retool if u feel the team is close. Moving any of the other core basically gives you no option to retool and straight into a rebuild if Miller doesn't re-sign and no guarantees horvat would re-sign either if we go into a full rebuild. 

 

Moving Miller this year can let the management evaluate whether or not the team can compete with a retool. If they think it can then theyll retool with the core minus miller. If they decides its not good enough for retooling then they can move out the boeser ep horvat and kick start the rebuild with a ton of 1st and prospect. Much harder to retool keeping Miller and trading one of the other cores as at its current value its not even close to what they can bring.. boeser with no contract guarantees ain't gonna fetch u a haul that can help the team and you would still need to use his cap space to find a top line player. Moving horvat who's ur best faceoff guy and ur shutdown center man you'll need to replace him and likely won't get one back that can help within the next 2 season. Miller can fetch you a haul that might not help within the next couple season but can help in 3-4 when our current young core hits 26-27.. similar to when Miller started to take off.

Its easier to make a hockey trade with a Boeser, Horvat or Petey because of their age.  You trade one of them for a Dobson, Seider, Drysdale or something like that.  Miller almost certainly if traded will be trade for a 1st, 2nd, b prospect x 2.  Just a bunch of gibirish....

 

Its important to improve the overall team, by shifting talent to construct the best possible team.

[CaptainLinden16]

12 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Lyssel is a good prospect. And Carlo is nothing to sneeze at either.

 

They might not. But then again, maybe this gives them one last gasp with their aging core? And Poolman, while certainly no Carlo, does replace some minutes on that right side, while they upgrade their F core/get a built in 1C replacement for a very possibly retiring this summer, Bergeron.

 

The team will likely take a small step back, short term, regardless of who we trade Miller for. Best you accept that now.

 

That's how this works. You give up present certainty for future possibility. You split the asset in hopes that at least one or two of those pieces become something to help you down the line. Nobody is suggesting there's no risk.

 

But IMO there's FAR more risk to extending him, not having any of those assets, and throwing ever more money, desperately clinging to the status quo, that's already proven to no be good enough. And that's BEFORE he starts to decline. And the opportunity costs of having +/-$9m tired up in a declining, mid 30's player.

 

Other than picks, none of the pieces I've mentioned are 2-4 years away. If this team is so fragile that losing Miller is that crushing, we're already doomed. Miller or not.

Lysell is a small forward who is playing junior hockey.  You mentioned a 1st and 2nd as well.  Thats all 2-4 years away.  Debrusk is a "cap dump" in your own words.  The only real player coming back is Carlo, a player whom I don't believe the Bruins would ever move as it blows up the balance of the team. 

 

It's easier to trade someone else in a hockey trade rather than trading Miller.  If Miller is a point per game for 4 more years on his new contract, I don't really care what his contract is.  I know that is an if, but we cant assume he is instantly falling off a cliff.  Boeser, Horvat or Petey age makes it easier to do a hockey trade to rebalance the roster.

Edited February 20, 2022 by CaptainLinden16

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Lysell is a small forward who is playing junior hockey.  You mentioned a 1st and 2nd as well.  Thats all 2-4 years away.  Debrusk is a "cap dump" in your own words.  The only real player coming back is Carlo, a player whom I don't believe the Bruins would ever move as it blows up the balance of the team. 

No 2C and soon no 1C isn't a very good 'balance' either. Up to them to see which imbalance they prefer.

 

6 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

It's easier to trade someone else in a hockey trade rather than trading Miller.

Miller is by far the easiest trade we can make.

 

6 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

If Miller is a point per game for 4 more years on his new contract, I don't really care what his contract is.

That's because you're a fan. Not management concerned with actually building a contender to compete for a cup 2-7 years from now when our core is in their prime.

 

6 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

I know that is an if, but we cant assume he is instantly falling off a cliff.

Who said he'd instantly fall off a cliff? We'd probably get another couple years of Miller at/near where he is now. Then a year or two of probably a 60 point guy and then he's a $9m 3rd liner, right in the meat of Petey and Hughes prime.

 

No thanks.

 

6 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Boeser, Horvat or Petey age makes it easier to do a hockey trade to rebalance the roster.

Que?

[CaptainLinden16]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

No 2C and soon no 1C isn't a very good 'balance' either. Up to them to see which imbalance they prefer.

 

Miller is by far the easiest trade we can make.

 

That's because you're a fan. Not management concerned with actually building a contender to compete for a cup 2-7 years from now when our core is in their prime.

 

Who said he'd instantly fall off a cliff? We'd probably get another couple years of Miller at/near where he is now. Then a year or two of probably a 60 point guy and then he's a $9m 3rd liner, right in the meat of Petey and Hughes prime.

 

No thanks.

 

Que?

You are right Miller is the easiest trade but whats coming back is going to be useless.  So go ahead and make the easy trade.  

 

So I guess, I am a fan; and you are an NHL exec...if only life was this way, you could prefectly time everything.  Your late first round pick and Lysell are barely cracking the NHL roster in that window if they even make it.  They are entering their prime's after the 7 year mark.  So go fish...

 

It makes perfect sense for all teams to be interested in a young good player like Horvat, Petey and Boeser.  It broadens your pool of trade partners.  You can trade one of them for a different type of player that may compliment the roster better.  Hence easier to make a hockey trade and not some asset management nonsense.  I am confused why you are confused on this point.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

You are right Miller is the easiest trade but whats coming back is going to be useless.  So go ahead and make the easy trade.  

Such nonsense hyperbole. Guys like Chytil, Schneider/Lundkvist, Compher, Newhook, Barron, Carlo or Lyssel etc are not remotely "useless".

 

1 minute ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

So I guess, I am a fan; and you are an NHL exec...if only life was this way, you could prefectly time everything.

I never said I was an NHL exec. I suggested an NHL exec, with the goals they've already listed out, likely have a different viewpoint.

 

Honestly if this, and your above, nonsense hyperbole are how you intend to discuss things, you're clearly trolling and not worth the time or effort.

 

1 minute ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

 

 

Your late first round pick and Lysell are barely cracking the NHL roster in that window if they even make it.  They are entering their prime's after the 7 year mark.  So go fish...

Lyssel is 5 years from his prime. Right around Petey and Hughes statistical peaks. Try again.

 

1 minute ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

It makes perfect sense for all teams to be interested in a young good player like Horvat, Petey and Boeser.  It broadens your pool of trade partners.  You can trade one of them for a different type of player that may compliment the roster better.  Hence easier to make a hockey trade and not some asset management nonsense.  I am confused why you are confused on this point.

Why would we sacrifice a young, core piece that fits our management's stated, planned window of contention, to keep one that doesn't, is bound to eat more cap than any of them and decline before any of them?

 

By all means, in open to a Boeser trade should management see a better fit for our build. But that does not preclude a Miller trade. This is not an either/or scenario.

[wai_lai416]

28 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Its easier to make a hockey trade with a Boeser, Horvat or Petey because of their age.  You trade one of them for a Dobson, Seider, Drysdale or something like that.  Miller almost certainly if traded will be trade for a 1st, 2nd, b prospect x 2.  Just a bunch of gibirish....

 

Its important to improve the overall team, by shifting talent to construct the best possible team.

 

lol if miller is a ppg for 4 more years first there's no gurantee he'll be a ppg guy by the time he's 32.. claude giroux didn't even make it to 32 and started declining he's still have good numbers but not even worth 8.25mil cap hit.. so realistically you might have miller at ppg till 31 so 2 years into his new contract.. sry i dunno how you think 2 years into say a 7 year contract at whatever cap hit he end up with is a good contract. 

 

easier to make hockey trade with boeser horvat and ep?? horvat is in the same boat as miller.. with a significantly less value.. so how is horvat a hockey trade and miller is a bunch of giberish? who's going to give you dobson seider or drysdale for boeser or horvat?? if schneider is untouchable for nyr then seider and drysdale is untouchable on anaheim and detroit especially detroit who's still rebuilding.. especially not when one is going to be a pending ufa in a year.. the other have a rfa with a QO of 7.5mil and no guarantees he signs a long term with your team. ok great you traded EP for a Dobson so who's the guy replacing him to make this team competitive?? sry if this team is struggling to make the playoff this year taking out EP and his cap and replacing with dobson and his new contract + whatever leftover to replace EP is not going to push this team into a perennial playoff contender status. so say we struggle again next year and being on the fringe playoff position at the deadline. so are we blowing it up for a full rebuild or are we going to keep miller and risk him walk for nothing and pray to god we make the playoff?? we are one of the lowest scoring teams in the league bottom 3rd.. trading any of boeser horvat EP will improve the team by sacrificing more offense for more defense? 

 

why bother drafting then when draftpicks and prospects are guranteed to be giberish? might as well trade away all ur draftpicks every year for nhl ready players.. let's just give a 1st 2nd and 3rd for seider drysdale or dobson or offer sheet rfa every year for equivalents of draftpicks. majority of them dont' ever pan out anyways. 

 

 

 

 

[CaptainLinden16]

Just now, aGENT said:

Such nonsense hyperbole. Guys like Chytil, Schneider/Lundkvist, Compher, Newhook, Barron, Carlo or Lyssel etc are not remotely "useless".

 

I never said I was an NHL exec. I suggested an NHL exec, with the goals they've already listed out, likely have a different viewpoint.

 

Honestly if this, and your above, nonsense hyperbole are how you intend to discuss things, you're clearly trolling and not worth the time or effort.

 

Lyssel is 5 years from his prime. Right around Petey and Hughes statistical peaks. Try again.

 

Why would we sacrifice a young, core piece that fits our management's stated, planned window of contention, to keep one that doesn't, is bound to eat more cap than any of them and decline before any of them?

 

By all means, in open to a Boeser trade should management see a better fit for our build. But that does not preclude a Miller trade. This is not an either/or scenario.

What sacrifice?  The whole point of trading one of them is to adjust the roster to create a more complimentary core team.  I honestly don't think you understand what I am saying here at all.  I think you are simply thinking lets sell Miller because he is older for young lotto tickets in the hope that one of them ends up better than Miller so then you have a net positive impact on the roster.  This is where the fundamental misunderstanding lies.  

 

Fine useless is hyperbole.  Carlo isn't being traded.  You are choosing to debate semantics over substance.  The point is that any trade involving Miller will be quantity for quality.  The hope is that quantity turns into quality.  This is statically speaking a false hope.  The casino loves it when you play roulette all day.  Of course you can win big, but their odds of winning on each spin is fixed and better than 50%.  That means in the long run they win the longer and the more you play.  This is the same like trading Miller.  Yes you can win, but if you make a quantity for quality trade 1000 times you will loose in aggregate.  That means that taking the decision to spin the wheel even once is a dumb one.  The same applies for the lotto or whatever else.

 

In your own assessment of the window 2-7 years.  Miller is likely to be good for 4-5 of those years.  What are the odds that what you are getting back is going to be better than that.

[SilentSam]

2 hours ago, stawns said:

Oel

Myers

Petey

Hamonic

Motte

Schenn

Pearson

 

Plenty of leadership.  

 

 

Ps.  This list is a list of players that could be traded over the next 6 years with Miller at the helm.

His leadership is what IS needed for any picks or prospects we add in the near and distant future.

[CaptainLinden16]

5 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

 

lol if miller is a ppg for 4 more years first there's no gurantee he'll be a ppg guy by the time he's 32.. claude giroux didn't even make it to 32 and started declining he's still have good numbers but not even worth 8.25mil cap hit.. so realistically you might have miller at ppg till 31 so 2 years into his new contract.. sry i dunno how you think 2 years into say a 7 year contract at whatever cap hit he end up with is a good contract. 

 

easier to make hockey trade with boeser horvat and ep?? horvat is in the same boat as miller.. with a significantly less value.. so how is horvat a hockey trade and miller is a bunch of giberish? who's going to give you dobson seider or drysdale for boeser or horvat?? if schneider is untouchable for nyr then seider and drysdale is untouchable on anaheim and detroit especially detroit who's still rebuilding.. especially not when one is going to be a pending ufa in a year.. the other have a rfa with a QO of 7.5mil and no guarantees he signs a long term with your team. ok great you traded EP for a Dobson so who's the guy replacing him to make this team competitive?? sry if this team is struggling to make the playoff this year taking out EP and his cap and replacing with dobson and his new contract + whatever leftover to replace EP is not going to push this team into a perennial playoff contender status. so say we struggle again next year and being on the fringe playoff position at the deadline. so are we blowing it up for a full rebuild or are we going to keep miller and risk him walk for nothing and pray to god we make the playoff?? we are one of the lowest scoring teams in the league bottom 3rd.. trading any of boeser horvat EP will improve the team by sacrificing more offense for more defense? 

 

why bother drafting then when draftpicks and prospects are guranteed to be giberish? might as well trade away all ur draftpicks every year for nhl ready players.. let's just give a 1st 2nd and 3rd for seider drysdale or dobson or offer sheet rfa every year for equivalents of draftpicks. majority of them dont' ever pan out anyways. 

 

 

 

 

Trading picks for NHL ready talent actually pays off really well.  Ala Miller himself.  Top 10 picks are another matter.  The probability of that being someone of high quailty is substantial but not guaranteed.  I am not saying Seider, Dobson or Drysdale are getting traded.  I am just saying Detroit, NYI and Anaheim bubble playoff teams are not trading those type of players for older players.  Your best bet at getting someone like that is by giving up a younger quality forward.  It broadens your pool of trade partners. 

 

Petey has not contributed much to the team winning this year.  You can't categorically say that the team wouldn't be significantly improved with Dobson on the team.  The depth chart for forwards is a lot different than that of RHD.  

 

Boudreau proved this in a big way.  This team isn't a flaming pile of poop.  It just needs to be reconfigured.  More speed and a RHD.  What impact would a legitimate 1RHD have on Hughes?  Would this compliment the roster better?  Would the PK improve?  Would Hughes be able to play even more?  These dynamics are uncertain as they are untried.  Why is this not as legitimate of an idea as trading Miller for something that may add to the roster in the future?  I am just asking you to consider another possibility here.  I am not saying I am right, but I think that is certainly worth trying more than trading for a sack of magic beans.

[SilentSam]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

not sure where you get that idea from.  You're gambling on the emerging core of Bo, Petey, Hughes, Podz, Hogz, Motte and surrounded by vets like OEL, Myers, Pearson, Schenn and Hamonic as well as younger support guys like Highmore and Lammiko......not to mention using the freed up cap space on some good, experienced depth UFA's.  Young guys coming in from a Milelr trade would have a couple of years of solid support before stepping into a more prominent role.

 

Two moves could balance out roster nicely and build a line of succession behind Bo, Pearson etc etc.

Young guys coming in under Millers reign would perform at a higher level of urgency, and with much more emotion because they would see it in his game.

Im guessing that Management already sees this, and will do their best to keep Miller this Summer.

 

[stawns]

25 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

Young guys coming in under Millers reign would perform at a higher level of urgency, and with much more emotion because they would see it in his game.

Im guessing that Management already sees this, and will do their best to keep Miller this Summer.

 

What young players?  I'm not sure where this idea that miller is some great leader comes from.  He works hard, no doubt, but he's also volatile and prone to pouting when things aren't going well.  

[RWJC]

11 minutes ago, stawns said:

What young players?  I'm not sure where this idea that miller is some great leader comes from.  He works hard, no doubt, but he's also volatile and prone to pouting when things aren't going well.  

Absolutely. 
I consider him a leader because he has proven he can singlehandedly take this team by the bootstraps and use his blue collar work ethic to pull other players back into the game. 

that’s what a leader does.

leaders don’t just score goals or block shots, they have the distinct combo of emotion, pride and the ability to reshape the full dynamic of a team’s effort. 
 

if not for Miller, we’d be sitting at a lower  place in the standings - regardless of Bruce.

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by RWJC

[khay]

Based on Allvin's interview, Miller isn't getting traded unless we are clearly out of the playoffs by TDL.

 

I think our schedule is relatively easy leading up to the deadline, which means we won't be out of the playoff race by TDL and hence, Miller will remain a Canuck for this season.

 

The only way we trade Miller is if someone overpays. I think the Rangers are the only team that can afford to overpay and have what we want. But they are clearly hesitant to part with their prized young players and look to be content to give it a go at the playoffs with what they've got. 

 

So I think Miller stays a Canuck. I hope we make the playoffs and make some noise while the Rangers f*ck up and bounce out in the first round.

 

The management will then figure out the best way to retool in the offseason giving us more time to assess various trade options involving everyone not named Hughes, Demko, and probably Petey. Maybe the Rangers will offer what we want after seeing how limited their roster is without a play driving 2C.

 

I include Petey in the untouchable list. Petey's starting to ramp up his play and playing more dynamic as of late. I see him finishing the season with around 25 goals and 55-60 points. Definitely a down year but not too terrible a season considering his terrible start. And Petey's defensive awareness just makes him such a valuable piece in the retool. I'd hate to part with a young player like him.

 

 

[SilentSam]

8 minutes ago, stawns said:

What young players?  I'm not sure where this idea that miller is some great leader comes from.  He works hard, no doubt, but he's also volatile and prone to pouting when things aren't going well.  

The ones we trade your list in for over the next 3 years.

The leadership in this city has been passive since Linden.

 

Messier

Luongo 

Naslund 

Sedin

Horvat

 

Passive and Noble..  Quiet. 
 

Dynasty’s are built around leadership that leads with intensity and emotion.

Bruins:

Bourque

Thorton

Chara 

Burgeron

 

 

 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

What sacrifice?  The whole point of trading one of them is to adjust the roster to create a more complimentary core team.  I honestly don't think you understand what I am saying here at all.  I think you are simply thinking lets sell Miller because he is older for young lotto tickets in the hope that one of them ends up better than Miller so then you have a net positive impact on the roster.  This is where the fundamental misunderstanding lies.  

 

Fine useless is hyperbole.  Carlo isn't being traded.  You are choosing to debate semantics over substance.  The point is that any trade involving Miller will be quantity for quality.  The hope is that quantity turns into quality.  This is statically speaking a false hope.  The casino loves it when you play roulette all day.  Of course you can win big, but their odds of winning on each spin is fixed and better than 50%.  That means in the long run they win the longer and the more you play.  This is the same like trading Miller.  Yes you can win, but if you make a quantity for quality trade 1000 times you will loose in aggregate.  That means that taking the decision to spin the wheel even once is a dumb one.  The same applies for the lotto or whatever else.

 

In your own assessment of the window 2-7 years.  Miller is likely to be good for 4-5 of those years.  What are the odds that what you are getting back is going to be better than that.

No actually, YOU'RE missing the point. 

 

It's not about getting *cross your fingers* assets. It's about getting assets that will be useful in your window (even if less so) AND not saddling yourself with a $9m 3rd liner in the meat of your contention window. The opportunity costs of having that guy on your roster is huge.

 

Guess what happens if none of those guys turn in to a Miller level player?

 

You have cap space to go buy one. That's what.

 

Or you have cap space to trade for a solid player for peanuts because a contender, right against the cap, has to jettison one (aka how we got Miller in the first place).

 

You know what we have if we keep Miller? No assets. No cap space. A declining, mid 30's 3rd liner, in the meat of our contention window. A stagnant team that's already shown to not be good enough with a cheaper, more productive Miller, that's going to get worse by trying to throw more money (and hence also losing depth), clinging to that middling team. That's what.

Edited February 20, 2022 by aGENT