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

[Fanuck]

4 hours ago, JM_ said:

it would be. You just won't convince me that Miller is the problem with this lineup. 

 

We're still suffering from Benning's pro scouting mistakes, but lets not trade our best F and keep the crap. Lets move the crap first. 

You're looking at this too narrowly JM, I don't see many people saying Miller himself is the problem - at least I'm not saying that anyway.  I keep hearing over and over that Miller is a fantastic player that many teams would be lucky to have - but for how long is the question?  Signing a 'not young' player to what would essentially be a career payday to a long-term contract which surely will be both buyout-proof and attached with clauses is the problem - not Miller specifically.  Signing Miller doesn't fix the issue you already identified which was the situation JB left us in - completely void of any depth in the organization at any position.  That is to say, we have virtually NO defensive depth in the organization.  I know people are hanging on to the Rathbone hope but that's no guarantee - beyond that there's nobody who's going to make meaningful contributions down the line.  At forward, we lack any real 'blue-chip' prospects let alone middle-six guys or grit.  Overall our prospect pool has got to be one of the worst in the league - that wouldn't concern most people if we were a perennial contender like we were under the Gillis regime where we had to sell out the future to stay at the top, but sadly as we all know we're a mediocre club at best and we're not going to get better signing Miller in my view - the best we could hope for under that scenario would be to stay mediocre.  That said, I'll admit, if other assets (Garland/BB/JR/ect....) could be identified and liquidated to fill other needs, that presents options as well but creates new concerns at the same time. 

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, HKSR said:

But what are you gonna do with that $9M in cap space to improve?  It's either (1) Re-sign guys we currently have or (2) Sign UFAs --- 29 or 30 year old guys to 5+ year contracts? Uhhh... what?

Nope. You make trades like the one that got us 25(?) year old Miller in the first place.

[EddieVedder]

1 hour ago, HKSR said:

Why not trade Boeser and others instead?  Keep what works and move what doesn't.  We made the mistake of moving on from guys like Tanev and Toffoli when we knew they worked well here and how did that turn out?

Yup.  The dumbest move this team could make is to keep Boeser .  Hes become the most irrelevant player on the club.

[HKSR]

10 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nope. You make trades like the one that got us 25(?) year old Miller in the first place.

Cool cool... cuz that happens all the time.  Especially for this franchise lol

[JM_]

6 hours ago, Fanuck said:

What problem are you referring to?  No, I'm not being sarcastic - people have different views about what the issue is with this club. 

I think the team has the main core pieces to compete, but we're stuck with some bit players that either are not effective (e.g., Petan) or cost too much for what they bring (Pearson, Dickie, Poolman). We're also too small of a team to grind out games. I think one of the reasons we've had poor 1st periods is we can get put on our heels easily by larger teams. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by JM_

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Fanuck said:

You're looking at this too narrowly JM, I don't see many people saying Miller himself is the problem - at least I'm not saying that anyway.  I keep hearing over and over that Miller is a fantastic player that many teams would be lucky to have - but for how long is the question?  Signing a 'not young' player to what would essentially be a career payday to a long-term contract which surely will be both buyout-proof and attached with clauses is the problem - not Miller specifically.  Signing Miller doesn't fix the issue you already identified which was the situation JB left us in - completely void of any depth in the organization at any position.  That is to say, we have virtually NO defensive depth in the organization.  I know people are hanging on to the Rathbone hope but that's no guarantee - beyond that there's nobody who's going to make meaningful contributions down the line.  At forward, we lack any real 'blue-chip' prospects let alone middle-six guys or grit.  Overall our prospect pool has got to be one of the worst in the league - that wouldn't concern most people if we were a perennial contender like we were under the Gillis regime where we had to sell out the future to stay at the top, but sadly as we all know we're a mediocre club at best and we're not going to get better signing Miller in my view - the best we could hope for under that scenario would be to stay mediocre.  That said, I'll admit, if other assets (Garland/BB/JR/ect....) could be identified and liquidated to fill other needs, that presents options as well but creates new concerns at the same time. 

I think we're looking at two different issues tho. One is - can this team be competitive now with the core group of Demko, Miller, Bo, Petey, Hughes, and the support guys of Podz, OEL, Myers. I think they can if we shed off other bottom 6 guys, and bring in some bigger bodies. We may just be able to bring in a defensive upgrade on a Boeser deal as well, e.g. 

 

And the second issue being. - We can't fix our prospect pool with just a Miller deal, its too long term a problem. Thats one of the reasons I want to run with the current group, we need 4-5 years of drafting to make up for the massive shortfall in prospects, not only do we need the picks, but those guys are going to need that time to become NHL ready. 

[JM_]

6 hours ago, Alflives said:

Out: Miller and Garland

In:  Young 3C and RSD.

This might not result in a step back.  It might keep us where we are now but we will have a better future.  

For sure it may not, but they had better be some good pieces. IMO thats too risky if its for someone like Lundkvist from NYR, he's on the small side and hasn't shown much at the NHL level yet. If we're going to move our best F, it can't be for magic beans, it needs to be for an established RFA. 

[JM_]

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

Then we still have $9m in cap space...

 

The entire team isn't badly constructed. We have plenty of good pieces. Mostly just the right side D and the lack of size/grit. Beyond that, we also lack the organizational depth to cycle through as guys age, or price themselves out. But that's an "organization" not "team" construction issue.

 

Correcting those gets much harder when paying Miller $9m through his declining years. And sacrificing that needed organizational depth, to clear the cap required to keep Miller and try to contend the next few years is a non starter IMO. Management has basically spray come out and said it. And I don't see us contending without correcting them

except we still have Miller on a great deal for next year, which we need thanks to the dead cap in Holtby, Virtanen and Halak. 

 

We actually don't need to move Miller this year. We can simply hang on to him and make a decision at the TDL depending on how things are going. 

 

A Miller deal isn't going to fix our lack of prospects on its own AND bring in roster payers that make us better. You're hoping for too much. 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by JM_

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, HKSR said:

Cool cool... cuz that happens all the time.  Especially for this franchise lol

Actually, it kind of does. No, it doesn't often happen to us though because we haven't generally had the cap space. The exact problem that extending Miller exacerbates. I'd love to be in position to take advantage of the next Devon Toews for a 2nd or Miller for a mid first and spare parts trade (maybe Shae Theodore is the next...?). That doesn't happen with Miller extended.

 

29 minutes ago, JM_ said:

except we still have Miller on a great deal for next year, which we need thanks to the dead cap in Holtby, Virtanen and Halak. 

 

We actually don't need to move Miller this year. We can simply hang on to him and make a decision at the TDL depending on how things are going. 

There's almost zero chance this gets past this summer. He's either extended on a team friendly deal (unlikely) or moved this summer. There's simply far too many risks letting it carry on in to the season (poor season, injuries, dwindling leverage the closer to the TDL it gets etc, etc), never mind the absolute circus of a distraction it would be around the team until something gave which we ABSOLUTELY do not need.

 

29 minutes ago, JM_ said:

 

A Miller deal isn't going to fix our lack of prospects on its own AND bring in roster payers that make us better. You're hoping for too much. 

 

Nope, I keep telling you I don't expect a Miller trade to be a "saviour move". Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Again, that's not what it's about. It's not about it fixing everything or "replacing Miller". It's merely one of the (many) steps to get there.

[HKSR]

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Actually, it kind of does. No, it doesn't often happen to us though because we haven't generally had the cap space. The exact problem that extending Miller exacerbates. I'd love to be in position to take advantage of the next Devon Toews for a 2nd or Miller for a mid first and spare parts trade (maybe Shae Theodore is the next...?). That doesn't happen with Miller extended.

 

There's almost zero chance this gets past this summer. He's either extended on a team friendly deal (unlikely) or moved this summer. There's simply far too many risks letting it carry on in to the season (poor season, injuries, dwindling leverage the closer to the TDL it gets etc, etc), never mind the absolute circus of a distraction it would be around the team until something gave which we ABSOLUTELY do not need.

 

Nope, I keep telling you I don't expect a Miller trade to be a "saviour move". Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Again, that's not what it's about. It's not about it fixing everything or "replacing Miller". It's merely one of the (many) steps to get there.

You really think trades like the ones for Miller or Toews happens that often?  What other examples can you think of?

[HOFsedins]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

Nope. You make trades like the one that got us 25(?) year old Miller in the first place.

Lol. You make it sound so easy. And FWIW, do you rmb what we traded for him? Isn't the majority of fans complaining about always trading away picks? Let's say you manage to get another Miller. What happens when he starts producing PPG numbers? Oh sorry your too old, we can't afford you, we are worried in years 4 and 5 in your contract. Trade him. Rinse. Repeat. Not gona get you anywhere.

 

It's funny how we hit on a player like Miller and once we don't wana pay him, we just want to get rid of him because he's too expensive. Then we start complaining again. The fanbase is never happy no matter what happens.

Edited April 12, 2022 by HOFsedins

[Alflives]

23 minutes ago, HOFsedins said:

Lol. You make it sound so easy. And FWIW, do you rmb what we traded for him? Isn't the majority of fans complaining about always trading away picks? Let's say you manage to get another Miller. What happens when he starts producing PPG numbers? Oh sorry your too old, we can't afford you, we are worried in years 4 and 5 in your contract. Trade him. Rinse. Repeat. Not gona get you anywhere.

 

It's funny how we hit on a player like Miller and once we don't wana pay him, we just want to get rid of him because he's too expensive. Then we start complaining again. The fanbase is never happy no matter what happens.

We aren’t getting back a guy who is as good as Miller is right now.  But what we do get back will be better than 

Miller in two years, or so that’s the expectation.  With Miller having a career year (100 points) we are still not a playoff team.  In two or three years, when Miller is in serious decline, but making over 8 on our cap, how good will we be?  Trading Miller is likely a step back, but it will (expectedly) make us better in two years than we are now.  And maybe we are better even sooner.  The key is though we will be a better team for a five to seven year window.  If we keep Miller what’s our window, 2 years?  And even then it’s two years of just missing the playoffs, like this year.  

[JM_]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Actually, it kind of does. No, it doesn't often happen to us though because we haven't generally had the cap space. The exact problem that extending Miller exacerbates. I'd love to be in position to take advantage of the next Devon Toews for a 2nd or Miller for a mid first and spare parts trade (maybe Shae Theodore is the next...?). That doesn't happen with Miller extended.

 

There's almost zero chance this gets past this summer. He's either extended on a team friendly deal (unlikely) or moved this summer. There's simply far too many risks letting it carry on in to the season (poor season, injuries, dwindling leverage the closer to the TDL it gets etc, etc), never mind the absolute circus of a distraction it would be around the team until something gave which we ABSOLUTELY do not need.

 

Nope, I keep telling you I don't expect a Miller trade to be a "saviour move". Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Again, that's not what it's about. It's not about it fixing everything or "replacing Miller". It's merely one of the (many) steps to get there.

who cares abut the media, its circus time no matter whats going on. Of course we can keep Miller. 

 

I just don't see how the risk you're proposing in the step back plan is any less than the keep the core plan. Both have risk and potential benefits. If we trade for the wrong players it could be a disaster. 

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

We aren’t getting back a guy who is as good as Miller is right now.  But what we do get back will be better than 

Miller in two years, or so that’s the expectation.  With Miller having a career year (100 points) we are still not a playoff team.  In two or three years, when Miller is in serious decline, but making over 8 on our cap, how good will we be?  Trading Miller is likely a step back, but it will (expectedly) make us better in two years than we are now.  And maybe we are better even sooner.  The key is though we will be a better team for a five to seven year window.  If we keep Miller what’s our window, 2 years?  And even then it’s two years of just missing the playoffs, like this year.  

so thats the rub. Show me how that risk is really quantified vs Miller declining into Loui. Which path is more likely to lead to a competitive team? 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, JM_ said:

so thats the rub. Show me how that risk is really quantified vs Miller declining into Loui. Which path is more likely to lead to a competitive team? 

Don’t know JM.  That’s why the managers get big money.  I just hope they are better at making these evaluations and predictions of players’ profiles than Benning.  And I hope our owner keeps his nose out of these choices too.  

If we re-sign Miller at 8 mil on the cap, can we afford Bo and Petey?  

[Gawdzukes]

12 minutes ago, JM_ said:

so thats the rub. Show me how that risk is really quantified vs Miller declining into Loui. Which path is more likely to lead to a competitive team? 

I guess onw could ask will the young core's growth exceed Miller's eventual decline and/or will time be the winner/loser?

[Rackdawg]

16 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Don’t know JM.  That’s why the managers get big money.  I just hope they are better at making these evaluations and predictions of players’ profiles than Benning.  And I hope our owner keeps his nose out of these choices too.  

If we re-sign Miller at 8 mil on the cap, can we afford Bo and Petey?  

I gotta believe Bo will get at least 7.5 next deal for 6 yrs at least..

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, HKSR said:

You really think trades like the ones for Miller or Toews happens that often?  What other examples can you think of?

We got Schmidt for a 3rd as well recently. Really, a good few seem to happen pretty much every year...

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, HOFsedins said:

Lol. You make it sound so easy. And FWIW, do you rmb what we traded for him? Isn't the majority of fans complaining about always trading away picks? Let's say you manage to get another Miller. What happens when he starts producing PPG numbers? Oh sorry your too old, we can't afford you, we are worried in years 4 and 5 in your contract. Trade him. Rinse. Repeat. Not gona get you anywhere.

 

It's funny how we hit on a player like Miller and once we don't wana pay him, we just want to get rid of him because he's too expensive. Then we start complaining again. The fanbase is never happy no matter what happens.

Multiples of these trades happen every year. That's how we got Miller. And Schmidt (and in turn WPG got him). That's how COL got Toews.

 

Not about not paying players. And not about not trading picks. It's about timelines....it (potentially) makes sense to extend "next Miller" in 4-5 years with Petey and Hughes at their peaks. It does not make sense to extend current Miller now with them not in their prime and a tonne of structural and succesion issues. Get those things in order and the core in their prime. THEN worry about extending guys.

 

You're attempting to put words in my mouth. No thanks.

 

40 minutes ago, JM_ said:

who cares abut the media, its circus time no matter whats going on. Of course we can keep Miller. 

This team doesn't need MORE circus. It's bad mojo.

 

40 minutes ago, JM_ said:

 

I just don't see how the risk you're proposing in the step back plan is any less than the keep the core plan. Both have risk and potential benefits. If we trade for the wrong players it could be a disaster. 

Again, nobody anywhere suggested either are risk free. One is just less so. Cap space is king.

Edited April 12, 2022 by aGENT

[HKSR]

22 minutes ago, aGENT said:

We got Schmidt for a 3rd as well recently. Really, a good few seem to happen pretty much every year...

Schmidt is not a difference maker.  Just ask Winnipeg.  Heck, we know that.  So the plan is to trade draft picks away for players other teams don't want?