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

[Fanuck]

7 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

This is what I was wondering. What on earth does the media have to do with making trades? Nothing, they just report news and barely know what trades will happen beforehand. I'm pretty sure you can make a trade in the NHL without the media suggesting it first lol.

People put, imo, far, far too much weight on what these supposed 'insiders' post.  The overwhelming majority of what they post is total speculation, and that's fine,  except that many people take it as 'truth' and use what they post as supporting evidence on whatever argument they are making - that's my biggest issue with the 'bloggers/insiders'.  

[Warhippy]

33 minutes ago, Maddogy said:

This offseason is going to be saturated with good forwards. Many teams including Edmonton, Calgary and Toronto would have cap problems. It really depends on how teams perceive J.T. Miller among a ton of good forwards. Does he bring a unique set of versatility and competitiveness that other players lack? How much is that worth? I think it is very likely that J.T. Miller may not be traded this offseason due to low ball offers. 

The thing is. Even looking at the potential available forwards for this year, not a single one of them brings the versatility or scoring prowess that Miller has.

 

Miller also has that super team friendly contract that we could retain on to make it even more viable for a single year for a bubble team or contender that the available UFA players don't have.

 

So while it's not a dollar up a dollar down value. Miller does have serious benefits that other players just will not give a team in contention

[Warhippy]

16 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

If I was JR I'd go all in on Forsberg and trade Miller for picks and prospects for the future.  Kill two birds with one stone.  Forsberg and Petey together for the next 7 years would be fun to watch...

I would absolutely be open to seeing that happen as well. You got a cost-controlled player and we do seem to have good luck with swedes. And at the same time you trade our most valuable asset for the return we need

[stawns]

21 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

If Forsberg was taking a team friendly deal he’d be signed already, and his solo lap after round one was pretty telling he’s good as gone 

very possible, no question

[Warhippy]

29 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

There's no reason whatsoever to think there'll be a poor return imo.  

 

Giroux,  a pure rental and a lesser player at this stage of his career than Miller, returned Tippet, a first and a third.  Tippet was a top 10 pick so the trade was essentially two firsts and a third which I think most people would take in any Miller deal, at least I would anyway.  Again, find me anyone who can argue that Miller isn't superior yo Giroux?

 

The only likelihood in this scenario is that no matter what happens people will complain one way or another. 

I have argued the exact same.

 

Miller should return no less in what Taylor Hall garnered New Jersey when they traded him to arizona.

 

He should get at the very least what Philadelphia got for trading Giroux.

 

These one for one trade deals people are suggesting regardless of the pedigree for what is historically  happened confuse and concern me

[wai_lai416]

13 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

I would do that deal one for one as well. 

 

Lafreniere for Miller. 

 

With that being said, do we really want to trade our most prized player in a long time for another forward when we need help defensively?

 

Lafreniere for Miller frees up 4mil in cap this year also allows you to move one of boeser or garland or both if management decides they are not a fit.. if u can't get defensive help from either of the 2? At least you'll free up 10+ mil if not more to get defensive help or target a cap crunched team.. the next AL contract won't be massive unless he has a monster season.. and if he does who's to complain?

[mll]

8 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I have argued the exact same.

 

Miller should return no less in what Taylor Hall garnered New Jersey when they traded him to arizona.

 

He should get at the very least what Philadelphia got for trading Giroux.

 

These one for one trade deals people are suggesting regardless of the pedigree for what is historically  happened confuse and concern me

The price of a high end 1-year rental.  

 

But that's not a recent 1st overall - ie the suggestions he could bring back Lafrenière or 2nd overall.  The gap between 1st overall / top-5 vs a mid or late 1st is significant. 

 

The Edmonton Journal published a study on the value of draft picks a few years ago:  "The difference between drafting 10th and drafting 6th is about four second round picks. The difference between drafting 10th and winning the third overall pick in the lottery is nine second round picks."

 

[Warhippy]

17 minutes ago, mll said:

The price of a high end 1-year rental.  

 

But that's not a recent 1st overall - ie the suggestions he could bring back Lafrenière or 2nd overall.  The gap between 1st overall / top-5 vs a mid or late 1st is significant. 

 

The Edmonton Journal published a study on the value of draft picks a few years ago:  "The difference between drafting 10th and drafting 6th is about four second round picks. The difference between drafting 10th and winning the third overall pick in the lottery is nine second round picks."

 

I dislike this argument and line if reasoning so much.

 

Look at the last 15 years worth of top 10 picks and you'll see a graveyard of players who's draft pedigree never amounted to much.

 

At this point.  Right now.  RIGHT NOW AL is a 30 point forward.  At this same stage of their careers Yakupov was a higher scoring winger.  Nugent Hopkins is a bare 2nd kine centre.  Hall is arguably one if the better LWs in the league but...

 

I'm very much ok with the idea of taking a risk.  But, I'm also very much wary about wasting our best asset in over a decade on a gamble.

[250Integra]

5 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I dislike this argument and line if reasoning so much.

 

Look at the last 15 years worth of top 10 picks and you'll see a graveyard of players who's draft pedigree never amounted to much.

 

At this point.  Right now.  RIGHT NOW AL is a 30 point forward.  At this same stage of their careers Yakupov was a higher scoring winger.  Nugent Hopkins is a bare 2nd kine centre.  Hall is arguably one if the better LWs in the league but...

 

I'm very much ok with the idea of taking a risk.  But, I'm also very much wary about wasting our best asset in over a decade on a gamble.

I think Lafreniere is playing down in the lineup so he's not getting as much offensive opportunities. Nathan MacKinnon didn't have much to show for his first five years either and then he took off. I'd definitely do Miller for Laffy + assets.

[Fanuck]

25 minutes ago, mll said:

 

The Edmonton Journal published a study on the value of draft picks a few years ago:  "The difference between drafting 10th and drafting 6th is about four second round picks. The difference between drafting 10th and winning the third overall pick in the lottery is nine second round picks."

 

The problem with studies like the one you mentioned is that they all work on statistical averages where they design some sort of formula that equates draft position to games played and on-ice performance.   Where it falls apart is that they're saying 10th to 6th is equal to both 4 Thatcher Demko's (who was a 2nd round pick) or 4 Kole Lind's who was also a 2nd.  I'd take the equivalent of 4 franchise goalies in a heartbeat whereas you'd have to pay me extra to take 4 Lind's. Those 'studies' are interesting for sure,  but often fall short in reality when real players are involved I find.  

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

I would absolutely be open to seeing that happen as well. You got a cost-controlled player and we do seem to have good luck with swedes. And at the same time you trade our most valuable asset for the return we need

Sign Forsberg and trade Miller to LA for Brandt Clarke and whatever else we can get from them.  I think that is the best case scenario for Vancouver.  I have no issues paying Forsberg 9x7 considering he's only turning 28.

[flickyoursedin]

26 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Sign Forsberg and trade Miller to LA for Brandt Clarke and whatever else we can get from them.  I think that is the best case scenario for Vancouver.  I have no issues paying Forsberg 9x7 considering he's only turning 28.

Brandt Clarke would very much be off limits. They have Grans and maybe even Faber as RHD prospects that they’d trade before Clarke. I think Turcotte, Grans or Faber and a 1rst round pick (19th overall) would be a great haul for us. Turcotte drafted top 10 has had a slow start to his AHL career some say could be because of coming back from injury.

[flat land fish]

This is an interesting strategy but you probably need to plan around forsberg’s point output dropping to 70-75 points/year based on production around him.  The trade Miller piece may still make the team better from a depth perspective.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Trebreh]

2 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Get that haul for Miller then go after Forsberg with the promise of playing with Petey. 

 

 

[BlastPast]

One great opportunity that can come from trading Miller is to be able to create sort of an arms race dynamic, where teams don't just want to acquire him in order to gain the advantage of having him, but also to keep him away from (possibly direct intradivisional) competition.  I think the offers are going to be too good to refuse.

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I have argued the exact same.

 

Miller should return no less in what Taylor Hall garnered New Jersey when they traded him to arizona.

 

He should get at the very least what Philadelphia got for trading Giroux.

 

These one for one trade deals people are suggesting regardless of the pedigree for what is historically  happened confuse and concern me

Hall is a bit of an enigma.   But Giroux is not.   Came into the league around the same time as Crosby and is close to a fringe HHOF caliber player - not the same pedigree as Miller.     He's being doing it since he came into the league.   And is still doing it.   Miller had 3 Giroux like seasons.   He's had 14.    Yes Miller is a late bloomer and had a great year... this is the type of deal Miller should get if we trade him too i agree...maybe one more season like Millers been having would get us that,  but Florida didn't want Miller (ok if they did we don't know do we - or that Allvin felt it was enough either, my impression is that the deals just didn't move the needle though, especially given we can use him next season and still get a nice return and or try and sign him).    PHI was out ... that's a big difference too.  Just hope they are true to their word, as in that they won't let free agents walk for nothing.    We either sign him or yes this is something like what we can expect back - but likely with a roster player to help with cap. 

 

As for Forsberg - i'm always wary about guys having a career year their UFA year.   

[MikeBossy]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I have argued the exact same.

 

Miller should return no less in what Taylor Hall garnered New Jersey when they traded him to arizona.

 

He should get at the very least what Philadelphia got for trading Giroux.

 

These one for one trade deals people are suggesting regardless of the pedigree for what is historically  happened confuse and concern me

I would argue he garners more if he is traded at the Draft - he is cost controlled for the entire year and if the team he is traded in is not in the hunt he could be moved at the next deadline. I also think if Miller is traded its to a team that bowed out early in the playoffs - Bruins make the most sense and if we traded Miller and Garland to them it would be quite a haul for us IMHO. If the do that it means they are keeping Boeser and Horvat and planning on competing in 2 years. BUT the signing of Boudreau tells me they are going to see what this team can do under him and go from there. In that case I see them keeping Miller and moving Garland before the start of the season.

[Fanuck]

2 hours ago, flickyoursedin said:

Brandt Clarke would very much be off limits. 

I think people need to be reminded (not speaking to you flick), that if a Miller deal goes down, it doesn't need to be a RHD coming back.  That area is obviously of immediate concern, granted, but this organization is void of blue chip prospects at virtually every position including,  believe it or not,  goal.   Centers - we need them. Wingers - we need some especially if BB/Garland are traded.  Defenceman - definitely need more quality assets: despite people's hopes there's no guarantee Bone pans out at the  next level.   Goal, Considering Demko himself took 5 or 6 years to fully develop it would be wise to look for a quality young prospect now rather than later in my view. 

 

Would a Schneider or a Clarke be a great add, no doubt,  but this organization needs assets everywhere meaning many, many teams are potential trading partners. 

[Petey Castiglione]

1 hour ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

Interesting note about NJ.  It's been floated around here but to have Elliot mention it, there could be something.  

 

Seems like the writing is on the wall.  Management has been hedging their comments and more teams may be in the fold now than at the deadline as some teams were already out of the mix.  Retaining on Miller also opens more doors.  

 

Excited to see if/when something happens.