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

[higgyfan]

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

Are we a better team?

I think that the defence is better and they would now have a 3C that has good faceoff % and can play offence/defence. Also

have an extra 3M for trade or UFA.

[higgyfan]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

why do you want to move Garland?

I don't, but it is looking like the management want to keep Boeser.  I just think that Roy would be a great fit

with Hughes at a low cost.  He is really solid defensively and has decent size.  LA is in need of a top 6 RW and

have a wealth of RDs.

[Alflives]

41 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

That's probably where we disagree. Our owner pays the bills, which includes paying our hockey management handsomely to do their jobs. Which is why he went to meet Rutherford personally to try and convince him to come to Vancouver and take a crack at turning this team and organization around. Rutherford likes to let folks do their jobs, he's said as much, one could assume he likes being allowed to do his job too. He's got decades of experience and three Stanley cups to his credit, I reckon Aqua's gonna let the lifelong hockey man do his thing.

 

Aqua directing JR when it comes to hockey would be like Rutherford giving Aqua advice about how to have success in real estate. 

Aquilini doesn’t advise on hockey.  He sets the direction he wants the club to go.  When JR arrived he said a two year step back to make us constantly competitive.  Now JR us saying no step back.  Imhao that’s  the owner setting the direction.  He wants JR to reset the club, but not be taking a step back.  That's the change from when Aquilini first hired JR.  

Now, of course that change of direction could be just JR being here for several months and seeing th3 club differently now, than he did at first.  But he did also say our goalie covers a lot of problems with the team.  So did he change his view, or was the direction changed?  

[Alflives]

11 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

I don't, but it is looking like the management want to keep Boeser.  I just think that Roy would be a great fit

with Hughes at a low cost.  He is really solid defensively and has decent size.  LA is in need of a top 6 RW and

have a wealth of RDs.

Could the Coyotes want Garland back?  He’s now signed to a very good contract (4 years more) and they struggle to keep guys.  What do they have we would need/want?  Is a Garland for Crouse trade fair?  

[NucknAsia]

 

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

One of those RHD already has a suspect knee.  Wanna test Canuck luck on that?

 

Slafkovksy is a big game player who might be (bodily and skating) possibly the closest possible Jagr type I have seen since Ovechkin in terms of size skating and vision.  He put up 10 points in 31 games as a 17 year old against men in one of the hardest scoring leagues in Europe.  While playing 3rd line minutes I might add.  He is nearly a pure PPG player in international and big game play barring last year for some reason and was an olympic MVP and the reason Slovakia won a bronze.  He's one of the best skating large bodies in this draft and hits like a truck, has just turned 18 as of the end of March and fits the exact mold we are looking for in a left wing player

 

Rutherford has a significant history in his drafts as well.

 

You can claim your beliefs and I can claim mine.

 

But if the Canucks have the 2nd overall they are drafting Slafkovsky.

Canuck luck - knee

 

"Canuck Luck" has no bearing on a player's recovery...sorry. I don't worry about superstition, don't believe in narnia, or magic beans either!

Edited May 29, 2022 by NucknAsia

[Chris12345]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

Kinda hard to change the roster without clearing out cap space. Miller doesn't fit in with that age bracket and neither does Myers, Myers will be gone in a couple seasons anyway if we don't move him out. Can't take change the roster without cap space, can't take advantage of other teams without cap space and assets to give them in return for their players.

 

I wanna get through university without spending tens of thousands of dollars, probably won't happen. Gotta give to get, spinning our wheels won't change anything. 

 

Not taking a step back doesn't mean coming back with the same top players either if you can move players out and bring in players who can replace or improve upon some of what you've lost. Hell, if it turns out Miller peaked last season (and I think he did) and he regresses you're losing some of that offense whether you've kept him or not. 

 

I'm most interested in your going to university!

 

Where are you going? What are you studying?

[higgyfan]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Could the Coyotes want Garland back?  He’s now signed to a very good contract (4 years more) and they struggle to keep guys.  What do they have we would need/want?  Is a Garland for Crouse trade fair?  

Under normal circumstances it probably would, as Crouse hasn't shown Garland's scoring ability yet.  Crouse is

just starting to figure out his game and is turning the corner into a power forward type.  He would be such a

special player to have on our team's top 6.

 

The Coyotes will want a lot for Couse, so I'm hoping that one of the other trades might bring a player that could

be part of a trade.

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

Under normal circumstances it probably would, as Crouse hasn't shown Garland's scoring ability yet.  Crouse is

just starting to figure out his game and is turning the corner into a power forward type.  He would be such a

special player to have on our team's top 6.

 

The Coyotes will want a lot for Couse, so I'm hoping that one of the other trades might bring a player that could

be part of a trade.

So to make the Garland for Crouse trade  fair we add?   Do they need a young goalie?  Dipietro?  

[Coconuts]

27 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Aquilini doesn’t advise on hockey.  He sets the direction he wants the club to go.  When JR arrived he said a two year step back to make us constantly competitive.  Now JR us saying no step back.  Imhao that’s  the owner setting the direction.  He wants JR to reset the club, but not be taking a step back.  That's the change from when Aquilini first hired JR.  

Now, of course that change of direction could be just JR being here for several months and seeing th3 club differently now, than he did at first.  But he did also say our goalie covers a lot of problems with the team.  So did he change his view, or was the direction changed?  

Consistently competitive, no step back. Alright, what do those things mean? And I still disagree, that's Rutherford's take after taking a few months to assess this organization and roster imo. 

 

We could be competitive next season with or without Miller, I've said this repeatedly. Competitive means being in the mix, not being a slam dunk playoff team. Good teams miss out every season. No steps back could mean trying to remain competitive while taking a patient approach to team building as opposed to a stripped down rebuild. We can read and hear what Rutherford says but unless he spells out exactly what he means we're left to speculate. 

 

I don't think he's changed his view regarding Demko, he covers a lot of warts for this team and that was an ongoing discussion point throughout the season, particularly as this team made a go of it in the second half. Without him we'd have been dead in the water, which speaks to the team in front of him, and perhaps the systems in place, not being good enough. 

 

What he's probably observed is a team with a franchise goaltender being driven by a few young pieces (Hughes, Pettersson, Podz) and some savvy vets (Horvat, Miller, Pearson, OEL, Myers). Now, if he wants to get younger some of these pieces aren't going to be long term pieces. But he's likely got a firm handle on what he's got on the roster. 

 

Regarding Miller, it sounds like they've got a number in mind and he it isn't palatable to Miller's side he'll likely be gone. What is that number? We've been arguing that for months but have no idea. What we heard yesterday wasn't anything new, it was more of the same on that front. It's also a fluid scenario dependant on what other teams are willing to give up for different players on our roster, including Miller. Hockey and roster building are fluid things because you've got 31 other GM's trying to build their rosters too. Team needs, what a GM perceives his team to lack, injuries, perhaps the pressure for a team to take steps forward, and on and on. There's a lot that could come into play. But yeah, fluid scenario. 

 

20 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

I'm most interested in your going to university!

 

Where are you going? What are you studying?

Bachelors of social work, I'll be starting in September  

[higgyfan]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

So to make the Garland for Crouse trade  fair we add?   Do they need a young goalie?  Dipietro?  

I don't think they would want Garland anyway.  DiPi doesn't really add much to a trade. 

for Crouse, they will want a top 6 + a 2nd or more.

[Chris12345]

18 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Consistently competitive, no step back. Alright, what do those things mean? And I still disagree, that's Rutherford's take after taking a few months to assess this organization and roster imo. 

 

We could be competitive next season with or without Miller, I've said this repeatedly. Competitive means being in the mix, not being a slam dunk playoff team. Good teams miss out every season. No steps back could mean trying to remain competitive while taking a patient approach to team building as opposed to a stripped down rebuild. We can read and hear what Rutherford says but unless he spells out exactly what he means we're left to speculate. 

 

I don't think he's changed his view regarding Demko, he covers a lot of warts for this team and that was an ongoing discussion point throughout the season, particularly as this team made a go of it in the second half. Without him we'd have been dead in the water, which speaks to the team in front of him, and perhaps the systems in place, not being good enough. 

 

What he's probably observed is a team with a franchise goaltender being driven by a few young pieces (Hughes, Pettersson, Podz) and some savvy vets (Horvat, Miller, Pearson, OEL, Myers). Now, if he wants to get younger some of these pieces aren't going to be long term pieces. But he's likely got a firm handle on what he's got on the roster. 

 

Regarding Miller, it sounds like they've got a number in mind and he it isn't palatable to Miller's side he'll likely be gone. What is that number? We've been arguing that for months but have no idea. What we heard yesterday wasn't anything new, it was more of the same on that front. It's also a fluid scenario dependant on what other teams are willing to give up for different players on our roster, including Miller. Hockey and roster building are fluid things because you've got 31 other GM's trying to build their rosters too. Team needs, what a GM perceives his team to lack, injuries, perhaps the pressure for a team to take steps forward, and on and on. There's a lot that could come into play. But yeah, fluid scenario. 

 

Bachelors of social work, I'll be starting in September  

Right on all the best in your studies!

[Kobayashi Maru]

2 hours ago, higgyfan said:

I don't think they would want Garland anyway.  DiPi doesn't really add much to a trade. 

for Crouse, they will want a top 6 + a 2nd or more.

If we were getting Crouse, wouldn’t it most likely just be straight up for 15OA?

[Coconuts]

4 hours ago, Kobayashi Maru said:

If we were getting Crouse, wouldn’t it most likely just be straight up for 15OA?

I'd rather keep the pick tbh, we need to be using our high picks to draft what could be cost controlled ELC talent 

 

Especially after moving out 1sts in both the OEL and Miller trades, our prospect pool really needs to be replenished 

[JM_]

13 hours ago, aGENT said:

I mean there '22 1st, '22 WPG 2nd, unprotected '23 1st, Iorio and Protas isn't an awful offer. I'd expect we could do better but that would give a lot of ammo for potentially acquiring guys like Roy/Hague.

thats true. I guess it depends on how badly they want to keep Ovi's scoring going. 

[higgyfan]

8 hours ago, Kobayashi Maru said:

If we were getting Crouse, wouldn’t it most likely just be straight up for 15OA?

Would you take a 15OA for Podz?

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

Would you take a 15OA for Podz?

We are trading Garland for Crouse.  

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

thats true. I guess it depends on how badly they want to keep Ovi's scoring going. 

I feel like they might be just like Pittsburgh, keep throwing mud at that wall, while you have a generational player on your roster and you can make that sweet playoff money.

 

And it's hard to argue. Even at their advanced ages, both guys are still top players in the league. Drive it until the wheels fall off, rebuild when they do 

 

 

 

 

[JM_]

15 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

Would you take a 15OA for Podz?

no. Podz has already shown he's worth more than that, and just getting better. 

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, Alflives said:

We are trading Garland for Crouse.  

stop teasing me with this, I'm sensitive. 

 

I really want this to happen. 

[higgyfan]

2 minutes ago, JM_ said:

no. Podz has already shown he's worth more than that, and just getting better. 

That was my point.  The Coyotes wouldn't take a 150A for Crouse either.