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

[48MPHSlapShot]

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

again, Lundqvist is a helluva good d prospect 

I'm not saying he isn't, but I really don't think he suits our needs, and for a trade chip the caliber of Miller, I don't think we should settle, even if another complimentary piece is added. 

 

That said, if we manage to somehow land a big, young RD that projects to be a top 4 in a deal for say, Boeser, that changes things.

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I'm not saying he isn't, but I really don't think he suits our needs, and for a trade chip the caliber of Miller, I don't think we should settle, even if another complimentary piece is added. 

 

That said, if we manage to somehow land a big, young RD that projects to be a top 4 in a deal for say, Boeser, that changes things.

Lundqvist is a top 4d, at minimum.  Though he is in the mold of a Hughes/Rathbone, he's a good two way, smooth skating dman with high calibre puck moving skills.  He's not really small either.........5'11, 190 isn't terrible.  Again, there would have to be more of an add if they take Lundqvist, but that would still be a very good package for Van.  

Edited February 27, 2022 by stawns

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I'm not saying he isn't, but I really don't think he suits our needs, and for a trade chip the caliber of Miller, I don't think we should settle, even if another complimentary piece is added. 

 

That said, if we manage to somehow land a big, young RD that projects to be a top 4 in a deal for say, Boeser, that changes things.

Well that's just the thing. You can't look at these trades just in isolation. Maybe adding Lundkvist makes Rathbone expendable and we package Rathbone and Boeser for the D we all want?

 

You need to get the assets first though. So long as new management gets good value, have a little faith they'll get the right pieces in the right places, in time.

[HKSR]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

yeah, I think that's all in your head.  Semms to me, you're the onlyone looking at this from an emotional perspective.  

Uh no... go back and read the posts.  

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I'm not saying he isn't, but I really don't think he suits our needs, and for a trade chip the caliber of Miller, I don't think we should settle, even if another complimentary piece is added. 

 

That said, if we manage to somehow land a big, young RD that projects to be a top 4 in a deal for say, Boeser, that changes things.

that's definitley true..........I think if they move Boes, it would be for an esrablished roster player, near the same age I think

[coryberg]

17 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Oh man this is gonna be so sweet when Miller re-signs with Vancouver.  

That can't happen until next season at the earliest, gear down big rig.

[Warhippy]

18 minutes ago, BPA said:

Injured Eichel trade was…

 

Eichel + 3rd

for

Tuch + Krebs + 1st + 2nd

 

Got to think Miller should get somewhat close to that.

A $10 million injured Eichel

[HKSR]

Just now, coryberg said:

That can't happen until next season at the earliest, gear down big rig.

I know... it's gonna be great!

[48MPHSlapShot]

9 minutes ago, stawns said:

Lundqvist is a top 4 day, at minimum.  Though he is in the mold of a Hughes/Rathbone, he's a good two way, smooth skating dman with high calibre puck moving skills.  He's not really small either.........5'11, 190 isn't terrible.  Again, there would have to be more of an add if they take Lundqvist, but that would still be a very good package for Van.  

That's just the issue though. He's in the mold of two other players already on our team/in our system. You don't see a ton of teams having playoff success with multiple sub-6 foot offensive defenseman on their rosters. 

 

As @aGENTsaid, we could potentially then do something like package a Rathbone with Boeser to land the Dman we need, but the success of the Miller deal would then be largely dependant on whether or not we could make that hypothetical deal. I feel that kicking the can down the road in that regard is a significant risk. If we're not able to land the piece we need in a deal for Miller, it stands to reason that landing the player we need for two lesser pieces could prove difficult as well.

 

Edit: I'd like to see what a Boeser deal lands us first before committing to a Miller deal if the Miller deal doesn't land us the player we need on our right side.

Edited February 27, 2022 by 48MPHSlapShot

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

That's just the issue though. He's in the mold of two other players already on our team/in our system. You don't see a ton of teams having playoff success with multiple sub-6 foot offensive defenseman on their rosters. 

 

As @aGENTsaid, we could potentially then do something like package a Rathbone with Boeser to land the Dman we need, but the success of the Miller deal would then be largely dependant on whether or not we could make that hypothetical deal. I feel that kicking the can down the road in that regard is a significant risk. If we're not able to land the piece we need in a deal for Miller, it stands to reason that landing the player we need for two lesser pieces could prove difficult as well.

but you do find success with teams that have dmen who can move the puck out of their zone effectively, in a variety of ways.  If they are one dimensional dmen,sure, but if they can play defense as well, then it's a different story.  You can also pair them with bigger, more physical dmen, ala HUghes and Schenn.  I's have no issue having a high level puck mover on each d pair

 

and I agree, rathbone could be in play

Edited February 27, 2022 by stawns

[coryberg]

8 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I know... it's gonna be great!

Tough to say without knowing the terms

[48MPHSlapShot]

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

but you do find success with teams that have dmen who can move the puck out of their zone effectively, in a variety of ways.  If they are one dimensional dmen,sure, but if they can play defense as well, then it's a different story.  You can also pair them with bigger, more physical dmen, ala HUghes and Schenn.  I's have no issue having a high level puck mover on each d pair

 

and I agree, rathbone could be in play

Depends how you measure success. Just taking a quick glance at recent cup winners, you're hard pressed to find many small puck movers, let alone three on one roster. A scenario where we have Hughes playing alongside our hypothetical, big bodied defensive minded top 4 RD and Lundvist playing alongside OEL could work, but at that point I don't think Rathbone can be in the lineup. 

[Gawdzukes]

38 minutes ago, stawns said:

again, Lundqvist is a helluva good d prospect 

Clearly he has no knowledge of the players involved but has an opinion he grabbed out of thin air. I'm not sure what he's getting at. He's not happy with two good players and a first, apparently the quality of player(s) is inconsequential or something. So I guess he wants like 4 players and 3 picks or something to beat the two players and two picks we got for Kesler ... 

[HKSR]

58 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Gawd was definitely a bit abrupt there, but Lundkvist is a FAR better D prospect than Sbisa was, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that's all we should take.

 

I think I'm correct in that the prevailing train of thought Is that we'd certainly entertain just those smaller, additional pieces if Schneider is the main piece coming back. But if it's Lundkvist, we'd need additional decent pieces like an Othmann, Robertson etc who are good prospects in their own rights.

 

And Chytil is far from a scrub (though neither was Bonino). At worst, he's a solid 3rd line W'er/C, with size, great skating and solid 2 way play. And he still has upside beyond that if he can find better offensive consistency. Maybe a team/coach change will do just that. Some players need the kick in the rear to push them back on their original, higher trajectory.

 

And beyond that, a trade opens up cap and a TONNE of opportunity moving forward.

You're not the one to talk.  How many times have you insulted me including calling me myopic lol

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, HKSR said:

You're not the one to talk.  How many times have you insulted me including calling me myopic lol

You're comments are myopic. Laughingly so, in fact.

 

Perhaps try addressing the actual content of the post.

Edited February 27, 2022 by aGENT

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, HKSR said:

You're not the one to talk.  How many times have you insulted me including calling me myopic lol

You think myopic is an insult?

[stawns]

39 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Depends how you measure success. Just taking a quick glance at recent cup winners, you're hard pressed to find many small puck movers, let alone three on one roster. A scenario where we have Hughes playing alongside our hypothetical, big bodied defensive minded top 4 RD and Lundvist playing alongside OEL could work, but at that point I don't think Rathbone can be in the lineup. 

I don't really consider 5'11, 190 all that small I guess.

[48MPHSlapShot]

26 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

Clearly he has no knowledge of the players involved but has an opinion he grabbed out of thin air. I'm not sure what he's getting at. He's not happy with two good players and a first, apparently the quality of player(s) is inconsequential or something. So I guess he wants like 4 players and 3 picks or something to beat the two players and two picks we got for Kesler ... 

At this point not only are you being incredibly rude, but disingenuous as well.

[komodo0921]

1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I'm not saying he isn't, but I really don't think he suits our needs, and for a trade chip the caliber of Miller, I don't think we should settle, even if another complimentary piece is added. 

 

That said, if we manage to somehow land a big, young RD that projects to be a top 4 in a deal for say, Boeser, that changes things.

No way should JR/PA trade Miller unless they get exactly what they want.

Priority should be placed on re-signing him long-term.

It's up to teams wanting him to wow Vancouver brass to where they can't say no.

[Provost]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

Well that's just the thing. You can't look at these trades just in isolation. Maybe adding Lundkvist makes Rathbone expendable and we package Rathbone and Boeser for the D we all want?

 

You need to get the assets first though. So long as new management gets good value, have a little faith they'll get the right pieces in the right places, in time.

That is why the Rangers seem like such a good fit.  Schneider has just been the main focus as he is a seemingly ideal fit for the Canucks.  There are easily a dozen different pieces you could swap in and out to give similar value if they really want to make one player like Schneider untouchable.  If they want to make most of those pieces untouchable they just don’t get to trade for a high end player like Miller (or even Hertl) and can get a guy like Kessel instead.

 

For me if you take Schneider out of the mix, then K’Andre Miller should be next up for our interest.  He may not have the ceiling, but he has a much higher floor.  The fact he is a legit reliable NHLer already (better than Schneider at the moment) makes up for the fact he plays on the left side.

…. but the lists of players/assets that could come back in a package is pretty darn long.  All it takes is New York deciding they are going for it this the season and us deciding we aren’t.

 

Lafreniere

Kakko

Schneider

K’Andre Miller

Lundqvist

Robertson

Kravtsov

Chytil

Othmann

Barron

Skinner

Korczak

2022 1st round pick

2023 1st round pick

Later picks

 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Provost