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

[HKSR]

7 hours ago, shiznak said:

It’s great that you compared Miller to 13 (maybe 15) future Hall of Famers, who majority of their careers were PPG players.
 

How about instead of comparing their age 29/30 to their 36+ years. Average out their final three seasons in the league and compare that to their age 27-30 years. I can guarantee you that their PPG numbers will drop off drastically.

 

Out of that list, Miller’s career trajectory is more like Sharp’s. 

Right... just ignore all the others and pick the lowest performing player and call it a day... gotcha, that's the most accurate representation. 

[stawns]

7 hours ago, mll said:

 

The executive who made that quote says that he wouldn't trade him at this TDL.

 

Ahead of the TDL, LeBrun has interviews up in The Athletic with several GMs.  As part of his interview with Allvin he also asked some executives to weigh in on what they should do.  

 

That one executive believed he should be traded but not now.  He thinks they need to prepare the market for a re-tweak so that it won't be a surprise if he is traded at next year's TDL.  Says he would try and trade Garland as he's overpaid but wouldn't trade Miller or Boeser now and would wait.  

 

Another one thinks they should do all they can to sign him because he is young enough to be part of a retool/rebuild and if they can't he still thinks he will have considerable value in the summer.  

 

Another executive also recommends that they do all they can to sign him because it's tough to find top-end centres.  His advice is to involve the Sedins because Miller is a pretty emotional guy and if he gets the support from the Sedins and Allvin that might convince him to re-sign.  

 

I'd say that's all I'd need to hear from that guy

[stawns]

1 minute ago, HKSR said:

Right... just ignore all the others and pick the lowest performing player and call it a day... gotcha, that's the most accurate representation. 

I think his point is that this year, as amazing as it's been, is the outlier in Miller's career and comparing him to guys who did that year after year aren't really accurate comparables

 

[HKSR]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

I think his point is that this year, as amazing as it's been, is the outlier in Miller's career and comparing him to guys who did that year after year aren't really accurate comparables

 

My point was that in over 10 years, it is very rare for 29 or 30 year old players to finish top 25 in scoring (let alone top 10).  That alone puts Miller in very select company.  Those are the guys Miller should be compared to.  Statistically, one would normally exclude both the top and bottom outliers, but I chose to be conservative and ONLY excluded the top outlier (Ovechkin) and kept the bottom outlier (Sharp).  In other words, it is very realistic that Miller will perform similar to that list provided.

[stawns]

2 minutes ago, HKSR said:

My point was that in over 10 years, it is very rare for 29 or 30 year old players to finish top 25 in scoring (let alone top 10).  That alone puts Miller in very select company.  Those are the guys Miller should be compared to.  Statistically, one would normally exclude both the top and bottom outliers, but I chose to be conservative and ONLY excluded the top outlier (Ovechkin) and kept the bottom outlier (Sharp).  In other words, it is very realistic that Miller will perform similar to that list provided.

When he does that year after year after year, then sure.  

 

[HKSR]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

When he does that year after year after year, then sure.  

 

That's your opinion.  I've shown how rare it is for any player of that age to do what he has done and is doing, and took an actual mathematical and statistical approach, but yeah, let's just go off your opinion.

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, HKSR said:

That's your opinion.  I've shown how rare it is for any player of that age to do what he has done and is doing, and took an actual mathematical and statistical approach, but yeah, let's just go off your opinion.

He could go on to have a Patrick Sharp career into his 30's, but I certainly wouldn't pay $9m over a long term for that.

[HKSR]

7 minutes ago, stawns said:

He could go on to have a Patrick Sharp career into his 30's, but I certainly wouldn't pay $9m over a long term for that.

Again, taking the lowest outlier is not the smartest way to look at the data, but you do you.

 

What I've also calculated is the likely upper cap limit in 2030-31 based on historical growth, and taking escrow into consideration.  The number comes out to $108m to $110m.  So $9m in 2030-31 is equivalent to around $6.75m in today's cap.  $6.75m for a 50pt centre like Miller is not terrible at all, and likely even tradeable depending on the salary structure (that's if he doesn't retire by year 7 or 8 of his contract, which looks very realistic as well).

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by HKSR

[Provost]

11 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Again, taking the lowest outlier is not the smartest way to look at the data, but you do you.

 

What I've also calculated is the likely upper cap limit in 2030-31 based on historical growth, and taking escrow into consideration.  The number comes out to $108m to $110m.  So $9m in 2030-31 is equivalent to around $6.75m in today's cap.  $6.75m for a 50pt centre like Miller is not terrible at all, and likely even tradeable depending on the salary structure (that's if he doesn't retire by year 7 or 8 of his contract, which looks very realistic as well).

 

You just keep making random assumptions based in nothing and then using them as your rationale.

 

Nobody remotely knows what the cap will do, not the league head office, not teams, not the NHLPA.  The only thing known is that in the short term it isn’t going up materially for the first half of a potential Miller contract due to money owed by the players.  Even longer than expected since restrictions blew a huge hole in revenues yet again this season, and the cap formula now relies on numbers from the previous two completed seasons.  That makes it 25/26 not even counting the hundreds of millions that have to be paid back by the players still.

Arenas and revenues don’t have infinite capacity, so HRR can’t just climb linearly.  The cap was already much too high before COVID because of the artificial inflator used by the NHPLA, resulting in big escrow numbers. 

[HKSR]

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

You just keep making random assumptions based in nothing and then using them as your rationale.

 

Nobody remotely knows what the cap will do, not the league head office, not teams, not the NHLPA.  The only thing known is that in the short term it isn’t going up materially for the first half of a potential Miller contract due to money owed by the players.  Even longer than expected since restrictions blew a huge hole in revenues yet again this season, and the cap formula now relies on numbers from the previous two completed seasons.  That makes it 25/26 not even counting the hundreds of millions that have to be paid back by the players still.

Arenas and revenues don’t have infinite capacity, so HRR can’t just climb linearly.  The cap was already much too high before COVID because of the artificial inflator used by the NHPLA, resulting in big escrow numbers. 

Its called financial forecasting.  I base my information off of historical growth.  I havent even accounted for the heavy inflationary environment that we live in today (so im being relatively conservative in my estimates).  You are entitled to FEEL that the cap won't go up by that much, I just like to base my rationale off historical numbers.

[HKSR]

11 minutes ago, Provost said:

You just keep making random assumptions based in nothing and then using them as your rationale.

 

Nobody remotely knows what the cap will do, not the league head office, not teams, not the NHLPA.  The only thing known is that in the short term it isn’t going up materially for the first half of a potential Miller contract due to money owed by the players.  Even longer than expected since restrictions blew a huge hole in revenues yet again this season, and the cap formula now relies on numbers from the previous two completed seasons.  That makes it 25/26 not even counting the hundreds of millions that have to be paid back by the players still.

Arenas and revenues don’t have infinite capacity, so HRR can’t just climb linearly.  The cap was already much too high before COVID because of the artificial inflator used by the NHPLA, resulting in big escrow numbers. 

Wait... you don't actually think the players are just gonna sit around until 2025-26 before paying back their share do you? ... oh boy.... 

[Me_]

11 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Its called financial forecasting.  I base my information off of historical growth.  I havent even accounted for the heavy inflationary environment that we live in today (so im being relatively conservative in my estimates).  You are entitled to FEEL that the cap won't go up by that much, I just like to base my rationale off historical numbers.

Swedish logging firm with a 25 year plan.

 

Not hockey. 
 

Thanks.

[Boudrias]

10 hours ago, aGENT said:

Basically what coconuts said. Too much, too long, right in the meat of the young core's contention window with a very likely, declining player.

 

The likely opportunity cost of extending him is just too big. Even if NONE of the assets we get back, work out to even be depth NHL players (HIGHLY unlikely IMO), you still have his +/-$8.5m cap to fill roster holes.

Totally agree. Resigning Miller with the attending risk of his play over the term against trading him for a basket of assets. Canucks have to improve their defense. When the team plays at the top of their game they are a playoff contender but thats all. Any expectation that they could go deep into playoffs is wishful thinking. Legit Cup contenders will eat that Canuck defense for lunch. Regular season is not playoffs. 

 

Miller is a potential gift horse. Teams headed for serious Cup contention can acquire a top 5 NHL center. I will be shocked if the biding doesn't get Vancouver some quality players. Those players will fit the timeline that the team is on far better than Miller does. It will be sad to see him go but I highly doubt he would resign anyway. At the peak of his career and wanting a Cup himself to cap that career won't be happening in Van. I suspect Rutherford has already made league GM's aware of his ask on Miller. The question is whether the possible return will be enough for JR to pull the trigger and incur the wrath of fans who think the Canucks are legit contenders.

[Provost]

31 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Its called financial forecasting.  I base my information off of historical growth.  I havent even accounted for the heavy inflationary environment that we live in today (so im being relatively conservative in my estimates).  You are entitled to FEEL that the cap won't go up by that much, I just like to base my rationale off historical numbers.

The more words you say, the less you sound like you know what you are talking about.

 

High inflation is a downward pressure on hockey revenues and not an upwards one.  The bulk of the revenues are already baked into things like TV deals, the rest is as risk due to high inflation since hockey tickets are discretionary spending.  If families are spending $100 more on broccoli a month, the things that drop off are the “luxury” discretionary spending.  Maybe they still go to a game, but don’t buy a jersey… all that puts downward pressure on HRR.

 

Also, if you haven’t heard this phrase before, maybe Google it.  “Past performance doesn’t indicate future returns”.

 

It absolutely means forecasting does not involve taking historical numbers and then just plugging them into a linear projection.  It is a very elementary bit of forecasting methodology.  You actually have to consider drivers of revenue and potential areas of growth, and not just try to draw a line from several years ago.

 

Even IF you just used a trend line from the past, revenues actually tanked the last 3 seasons, so have moved down and not up.  To get your invented massive growth projections you have to have just decided to ignore that.

 

The only outlet for increasing HRR is to sell more tickets or raise tickets prices.  Since the Canadian teams and top earning US ones are close to max arena capacity already there is just a ceiling on growth.  That makes it a capped, non linear growth model just from that.  Any significant growth at all has to be driven by increased sales from smaller market and less well performing teams.  There is nothing to suggest that happening, heck Arizona playing in a college arena and ensuring massive losses for several years would undo any modest growth elsewhere.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Provost

[HKSR]

4 minutes ago, Provost said:

The more words you say, the less you sound like you know what you are talking about.

 

High inflation is a downward pressure on hockey revenues and not an upwards one.  The bulk of the revenues are already baked into things like TV deals, the rest is as risk due to high inflation since hockey tickets are discretionary spending.  If families are spending $100 more on broccoli a month, the things that drop off are the “luxury” discretionary spending.  Maybe they still go to a game, but don’t buy a jersey… all that puts downward pressure on HRR.

 

Also, if you haven’t heard this phrase before, maybe Google it.  “Past performance doesn’t indicate future returns”.

 

It means forecasting does not involve taking historical numbers and then just plugging them into a linear projection.  It is a very elementary bit of forecasting methodology.

 

The only outlet for increasing HRR is to sell more tickets or raise tickets prices.  Since the Canadian teams and top earning US ones are close to max arena capacity already there is just a ceiling on growth.  That makes it a capped, non linear growth model just from that.  Any significant growth at all has to be driven by increased sales from smaller market and less well performing teams.  There is nothing to suggest that happening, heck Arizona playing in a college arena and ensuring massive losses for several years would undo any modest growth elsewhere.

 

 

If you think inflationary pressures won't make a difference on revenues for multimillion dollar organizations then this conversation is a lost cause.  Those that are that close to the line that broccoli is gonna cause them to reduce spending on hockey games are not the ones that would impact the revenues as much as you think.  

[Boudrias]

6 minutes ago, Provost said:

The more words you say, the less you sound like you know what you are talking about.

 

High inflation is a downward pressure on hockey revenues and not an upwards one.  The bulk of the revenues are already baked into things like TV deals, the rest is as risk due to high inflation since hockey tickets are discretionary spending.  If families are spending $100 more on broccoli a month, the things that drop off are the “luxury” discretionary spending.  Maybe they still go to a game, but don’t buy a jersey… all that puts downward pressure on HRR.

 

Also, if you haven’t heard this phrase before, maybe Google it.  “Past performance doesn’t indicate future returns”.

 

It means forecasting does not involve taking historical numbers and then just plugging them into a linear projection.  It is a very elementary bit of forecasting methodology.

 

The only outlet for increasing HRR is to sell more tickets or raise tickets prices.  Since the Canadian teams and top earning US ones are close to max arena capacity already there is just a ceiling on growth.  That makes it a capped, non linear growth model just from that.  Any significant growth at all has to be driven by increased sales from smaller market and less well performing teams.  There is nothing to suggest that happening, heck Arizona playing in a college arena and ensuring massive losses for several years would undo any modest growth elsewhere.

 

 

How do you view the potential revenue from NHL endorsed gambling? It is the only revenue growth of any significance that I can see. Maybe advert on uniforms as well. I guess another expansion team which would likely cost $1 billion. I still haven't seen a clear breakdown on what the new USA broadcast contract will bring to each club. I had read as much as $5 million per season but no detail since? 

[Provost]

40 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

How do you view the potential revenue from NHL endorsed gambling? It is the only revenue growth of any significance that I can see. Maybe advert on uniforms as well. I guess another expansion team which would likely cost $1 billion. I still haven't seen a clear breakdown on what the new USA broadcast contract will bring to each club. I had read as much as $5 million per season but no detail since? 

If they do the gambling right it should help out.  Expansion fees aren’t included in HRR, but a new team would be expected to be at the higher end of revenue and drive it upwards.
 

Escrow was already at above 10% pre-Covid so the cap was inflated beyond what it should have been and there were rumblings about making it go away in the next round of bargaining, so the US TV deal probably offsets that.

 

The answer is I don’t know either, the only thing I do know is the league with all their inside information can’t even get their projections right 6 months ahead of time for the next season… so some yahoo on the forums certainly can’t do it a decade out with zero actual info or access to their business plans.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Provost

[HKSR]

15 minutes ago, Provost said:

If they do the gambling right it should help out.  Expansion fees aren’t included in HRR, but a new team would be expected to be at the higher end of revenue and drive it upwards.
 

Escrow was already at above 10% pre-Covid so the cap was inflated beyond what it should have been and there were rumblings about making it go away in the next round of bargaining, so the US TV deal probably offsets that.

 

The answer is I don’t know either, the only thing I do know is the league with all their inside information can’t even get their projections right 6 months ahead of time for the next season… so some yahoo on the forums certainly can’t do it a decade out with zero actual info or access to their business plans.

You need to learn about how inflation impacts the luxury consumer.  For example, I might sound like a douche by saying this (but saying it to you won't bother me much), but my wife and I are fortunate to be able to afford two luxury vehicles worth $100k+ each and spend over $3000 a month on just car payments.  If the prices went up 10 to 15% on those vehicles, it wouldn't change a damn thing for me.  I'd still spend the money on them.  This 'yahoo' on the forum has been in finance for nearly 20 years and has degrees in economics, business, and is a chartered accountant.  When some yahoo like you comes along and tries to throw personal gut feel into future projections, it just sounds stupid lol

 

Anyways, I'm done with replying to simpletons like you while on vacation with my family, so I'm out.  Enjoy your day.

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by HKSR

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, HKSR said:

You need to learn about how inflation impacts the luxury consumer.  For example, I might sound like a douche by saying this (but saying it to you won't bother me much), but my wife and I are fortunate to be able to afford two luxury vehicles worth $100k+ each and spend over $3000 a month on just car payments.  If the prices went up 10 to 15% on those vehicles, it wouldn't change a damn thing for me.  I'd still spend the money on them.  This 'yahoo' on the forum has been in finance for nearly 20 years and has degrees in economics, business, and is a chartered accountant.  When some yahoo like you comes along and tries to throw personal gut feel into future projections, it just sounds stupid lol

You "might" sound like a douche here isn't entirely accurate

[-Vintage Canuck-]