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

[MeanSeanBean]

58 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

The thing is we don’t have to make a trade or give up assets to get a player like Miller. He is already here and has made it clear he wants to stay (obviously at a reasonable price to both sides). 
 

I realize we have cap issues and hopefully this new management will sort it out by not having to unload our greatest player. I personally give this a 60/40 that Miller stays.

We do have to give up assets long term though. We don't have the cap space to bring in other players. But you didn't acknowledge what I'm saying. How much cap would we have if we didn't make the OEL trade, like 25 million? We could have easily resigned Miller and not had to worry about it. Off loading guys like Dickinson or Poolman doesn't create the room to sign Miller. Commiting to a 30 year old Miller doesn't require cutting the fat, it would require a completely different cap structure.

 

If you're cool with this team how it is, that's awesome I'm pumped for you. I'm not. Watching these playoffs made me extremely envious of the Rags and Avs. I want a team that is a favorite to win, not a team that may win a round or 2 if everything goes right. Without that cap space, I can't see how this team can be a true cup contender.

 

Based off everything we have heard from management about the Miler situation, it's the cap that will keep us from keeping him. The formative trade that created our cap structure was the OEL trade. If that didn't happen, this team would be in an entirely different conversation. If Miller is traded it's because we couldn't afford to keep him. I like Miller way more then OEL and Garland, and that's why my knee jerk opinion on the trade is even more solid now.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Shayster007

[wai_lai416]

4 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

100% disagree.

 

You speak like Tanev was never put in other roles and responsibilities. We’ve watched Tanev very closely over the years to know exactly what he is capable of. Don’t give me that he never had opportunities. His strength is being a defensive defenceman. OEL can play defence and provide a much higher level of offence. A level that Tanev can not reach.

I can’t believe I’m stating such an obvious fact to you!

No one is arguing with u OEL can provide a much higher level of offence not sure how that is hard to comprehend.. he’s not put in a position or role in Vancouver to ever be providing that much higher level of offence. So where’s this much higher level of offence he can provide? Oh right he can’t provide it coz he’s not put in a role that’s capable of providing it as long as Hughes is here. If he’s not on the ice for pp1 if he’s not on the ice when the top line is on the ice he’ll never be able to provide the said offence. he will never be on the ice for those situation as long as Hughes is here.. so we are overpaying OEL because we are only utilizing his defensive side of his game and never utilizing his offensive side of his game except when there’s injury. So how hard is it to understand OEL is only worth it to teams that uses him as a #1 and overpaid on any team that uses him as a 2nd pairing 

[CanucksJay]

18 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

for his role on the team yes. his skill and ability definitely worth more than tanev.. but he's put into a role no different from tanev where all the extra skills and ability are not being utilized.. therefore we are overpaying a player that is over qualified for his role when we could have easily gotten someone significantly cheaper that is exactly for that role.

Do you think Hughes and OEL can coexist on the first line and log 26-28 min per night? Wouldnt be physical at all but puck movement and quick transitions would  be pretty fun to watch.

I have faith in OEL's stickwork that even if they are hemmed in, he will somehow disrupt the play and get the puck out.

I would then love to have a 2nd pairing  like Manson and Poolman to take the tough minutes / d zone draws and have something like Burroughs and Rathbone as the 3rd pairing with Schenn or Dermott as extras giving the bottom pairing games off depending whether we need a more physical presence or quickness.

 

I do agree with you that OEL is overqualified for his role with the team which is hard minutes with Myers with no offense time but if we can somehow get him and Hughes to log half the game, that would be great.

[wai_lai416]

13 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

Do you think Hughes and OEL can coexist on the first line and log 26-28 min per night? Wouldnt be physical at all but puck movement and quick transitions would  be pretty fun to watch.

I have faith in OEL's stickwork that even if they are hemmed in, he will somehow disrupt the play and get the puck out.

I would then love to have a 2nd pairing  like Manson and Poolman to take the tough minutes / d zone draws and have something like Burroughs and Rathbone as the 3rd pairing with Schenn or Dermott as extras giving the bottom pairing games off depending whether we need a more physical presence or quickness.

 

I do agree with you that OEL is overqualified for his role with the team which is hard minutes with Myers with no offense time but if we can somehow get him and Hughes to log half the game, that would be great.

If they somehow can co exist it would be great that would give us a true #1 pairing that can play offensive and defensive side.. instead of having a Norris caliber defenseman we can have a Norris caliber defense pairing. But I’m not sure if either is comfortable playing on the off wing.. and we saw how Hughes struggled without tanev and schenn 

[N4ZZY]

1 hour ago, MikeBossy said:

I look at the whole Miller thing in several ways:

1. Miller is 30 and a 7 or 8 year contract in my opinion is not a good idea if the AAV is 7 or more (I think he wants $8 mil plus)

2. If you  move on from Miller who do you bring in to replace his 99 pts - does Brock stay and score another 25 more points than last year. Do Petey and Bo have it in them to add another 20 points each? Can Kuzmenko fill some of the void? 

3. If you don't sign Miller do you go after Forsberg? Personally I would rather go this route as he is 3 years younger but he might be the star of the UFA crop and command more than we are willing to pay.

4. Do you have Miller play out the season hope he lights it up again and if we stumble trade him at the deadline or do you trade him before the season starts?

1. I don't think it's a good idea either. 

2. I think the offense will have to come by committee. The offence will suffer a little because of Miller's absence, but this is assuming that Miller can reproduce his 99 point season. If he doesn't, then it's kind of a moot point right? Offence by committee. 

3. I think Forsberg will cost too much, to be honest. 

4. I think holding onto Miller will be a distraction to the team honestly. And the longer the team holds onto him, the riskier it becomes, because the other teams in the league will know he's a free agent come the 2023 off season. And playoff teams aren't going to give us a large amount. Look at this past trade deadline. Nobody it seems was willing to give the Canucks what they were asking for. 

 

Best situation for the cap situation for the Canucks is to rid Miller for grade A prospects coming in. That way, we shed cap, and we get prospects and young players who can fill in spots on the team. So we build for the future, as well as gain immediate needs for the roster as well. That's a win win for the club. Either way, Miller and his camp wins. They get traded, and they'll either get paid by the team that acquires them, or they hit Free Agency and get paid. 

 

 

[wai_lai416]

2 hours ago, MikeBossy said:

I look at the whole Miller thing in several ways:

1. Miller is 30 and a 7 or 8 year contract in my opinion is not a good idea if the AAV is 7 or more (I think he wants $8 mil plus)

2. If you  move on from Miller who do you bring in to replace his 99 pts - does Brock stay and score another 25 more points than last year. Do Petey and Bo have it in them to add another 20 points each? Can Kuzmenko fill some of the void? 

3. If you don't sign Miller do you go after Forsberg? Personally I would rather go this route as he is 3 years younger but he might be the star of the UFA crop and command more than we are willing to pay.

4. Do you have Miller play out the season hope he lights it up again and if we stumble trade him at the deadline or do you trade him before the season starts?

I think it’s more so if boeser can add another 10-20 points and kuzmenko can provide 40-50 points. Common sense EP would replace Miller and if he continued the way he played in the 2nd half you would think he will at the very least get an extra 10-15 points playing with better wingers and not the scrap leftover like he mostly played with last season. So EP kinda replaces millers production then u would hope boeser kuz garland add up will replace EPs last season production 

[CanucksJay]

1 minute ago, wai_lai416 said:

If they somehow can co exist it would be great that would give us a true #1 pairing that can play offensive and defensive side.. instead of having a Norris caliber defenseman we can have a Norris caliber defense pairing. But I’m not sure if either is comfortable playing on the off wing.. and we saw how Hughes struggled without tanev and schenn 

Yeah

I'm hoping for Hughes to take another step in development over this summer.Until we get to the point where we dont have to shield / protect him, he cannot be considered our 1D.

I hope OEL can make the adjustment to the off wing. If OEL wants more prime time minutes, that's exactly what he should be working on this summer

 

I also hope that we revamp our PP over the summer.

 

OEL is the best at getting shots through from the point. I would want him at the point with Hughes being a rover and literally skating all over the ice and draging the defence out of position. We see that all the time when he brigns the pick in on the zone entry and goes behind the net.  Guys are too busy chasing him to be aware of their surroundings.  

 

 

[CanucksJay]

9 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

1. I don't think it's a good idea either. 

2. I think the offense will have to come by committee. The offence will suffer a little because of Miller's absence, but this is assuming that Miller can reproduce his 99 point season. If he doesn't, then it's kind of a moot point right? Offence by committee. 

3. I think Forsberg will cost too much, to be honest. 

4. I think holding onto Miller will be a distraction to the team honestly. And the longer the team holds onto him, the riskier it becomes, because the other teams in the league will know he's a free agent come the 2023 off season. And playoff teams aren't going to give us a large amount. Look at this past trade deadline. Nobody it seems was willing to give the Canucks what they were asking for. 

 

Best situation for the cap situation for the Canucks is to rid Miller for grade A prospects coming in. That way, we shed cap, and we get prospects and young players who can fill in spots on the team. So we build for the future, as well as gain immediate needs for the roster as well. That's a win win for the club. Either way, Miller and his camp wins. They get traded, and they'll either get paid by the team that acquires them, or they hit Free Agency and get paid. 

 

 

I agree.

I think if we trade Miller, we gotta trade him now.  I am skeptical that he can repeat what he did last year. Why risk his stock dropping when he would be much more valuable to a team from the beginning of the season as he is on a cap friendly contract.

Petey will have to go 1C, Horvat 2C.  Can we find a 3C? Dickinson as a centre did not pan out at all (unless he is taking faceofflessons over the summer or something)

 

[wai_lai416]

Just now, CanucksJay said:

Yeah

I'm hoping for Hughes to take another step in development over this summer.Until we get to the point where we dont have to shield / protect him, he cannot be considered our 1D.

I hope OEL can make the adjustment to the off wing. If OEL wants more prime time minutes, that's exactly what he should be working on this summer

 

I also hope that we revamp our PP over the summer.

 

OEL is the best at getting shots through from the point. I would want him at the point with Hughes being a rover and literally skating all over the ice and draging the defence out of position. We see that all the time when he brigns the pick in on the zone entry and goes behind the net.  Guys are too busy chasing him to be aware of their surroundings.  

 

 

I honestly don’t think we should mess with the pp until it doesn’t work. Yes the pp is frustrating to watch at times. But we some how ended with the 9th best pp in the league. I don’t think adding OEL to the top line and removing boeser or miller if he’s still here would make up the difference. Boeser have 11 pp goals miller 8. I don’t think OEL gets 8-11 goals on the pp or the forwards get 8-11 more to replace whoever they replaced. 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[CanucksJay]

1 minute ago, wai_lai416 said:

I honestly don’t think we should mess with the pp until it doesn’t work. Yes the pp is frustrating to watch at times. But we some how ended with the 9th best pp in the league. I don’t think adding OEL to the top line and removing boeser or miller if he’s still here would make up the difference. Boeser have 11 pp goals miller 8. I don’t think OEL gets 8-11 goals on the pp or the forwards get 8-11 more to replace whoever they replaced. 

That is a good point.

It jsut sucks to see OEL getting 20 seconds of garbage time every PP when he is so good at being the QB on the PP.

BB was pretty clear on 2x 1 mintue shifts for PP1 and PP2.  If that stays the case, maybe it'll work out.

[Jester13]

2 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

That is a good point.

It jsut sucks to see OEL getting 20 seconds of garbage time every PP when he is so good at being the QB on the PP.

BB was pretty clear on 2x 1 mintue shifts for PP1 and PP2.  If that stays the case, maybe it'll work out.

Especially when he has 133 goals in his career, with 58 of them being on the power play.

[wai_lai416]

Just now, CanucksJay said:

That is a good point.

It jsut sucks to see OEL getting 20 seconds of garbage time every PP when he is so good at being the QB on the PP.

BB was pretty clear on 2x 1 mintue shifts for PP1 and PP2.  If that stays the case, maybe it'll work out.

Only problem is we don’t really have a capable pp2 line. Garland podzolkin and whatever left doesn’t really work there’s no playmakers.. and again we would have to take apart the pp1 to either move one of the 3 center on that line into the pp2 breaking apart what worked 

[CanucksJay]

2 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

Only problem is we don’t really have a capable pp2 line. Garland podzolkin and whatever left doesn’t really work there’s no playmakers.. and again we would have to take apart the pp1 to either move one of the 3 center on that line into the pp2 breaking apart what worked 

It was so refreshing at times last year when PP1 overhandled and overpassed the puck where I'd feel so frustrated watching and then PP2 with guys like Pearson comes on and just scores the old school way with a point shot and a screen in front.

 

I believe there is enough talent for 2 good PPs but we need to get a little creative with line deployment.

 

PP1 Boeser, Miller, Petey Garland,  Hughes.  

PP2 Kuz, Horvat, Podz,  Hogz, OEL (maybe Pearson instead of Hogz?)

 

Kuzmenko plays a very similar role to Boeser's spot on the PP so he would be a natural fit. Horvat moving from bumper on PP1 down to PP2 might disrupt things a little. 

I think these 2 PP units could function in a very similar way and BB should just give them 1 minute each.  More goals might get scored this way.

 

I wonder how often our PP1 unit scores after staying out past a minute? 

I'm sure our execs are on top of that stat as well. 

I feel like if both units knew they only had 1 minute, we'd see a lot more urgency with more pucks being directed at the net.  The lack of urgency on PP1 kills me sometimes

 

[Ballisticsports.]

34 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

1. I don't think it's a good idea either. 

2. I think the offense will have to come by committee. The offence will suffer a little because of Miller's absence, but this is assuming that Miller can reproduce his 99 point season. If he doesn't, then it's kind of a moot point right? Offence by committee. 

3. I think Forsberg will cost too much, to be honest. 

4. I think holding onto Miller will be a distraction to the team honestly. And the longer the team holds onto him, the riskier it becomes, because the other teams in the league will know he's a free agent come the 2023 off season. And playoff teams aren't going to give us a large amount. Look at this past trade deadline. Nobody it seems was willing to give the Canucks what they were asking for. 

 

Best situation for the cap situation for the Canucks is to rid Miller for grade A prospects coming in. That way, we shed cap, and we get prospects and young players who can fill in spots on the team. So we build for the future, as well as gain immediate needs for the roster as well. That's a win win for the club. Either way, Miller and his camp wins. They get traded, and they'll either get paid by the team that acquires them, or they hit Free Agency and get paid. 

 

 

I think with management identifying the need for the D to have a better breakout, creating a faster forward pressure turnover in the opposition end  while building a better defence ,we won't need to just replace one person's goals, they will come by committee and better play and positioning and players

[wai_lai416]

4 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

It was so refreshing at times last year when PP1 overhandled and overpassed the puck where I'd feel so frustrated watching and then PP2 with guys like Pearson comes on and just scores the old school way with a point shot and a screen in front.

 

I believe there is enough talent for 2 good PPs but we need to get a little creative with line deployment.

 

PP1 Boeser, Miller, Petey Garland,  Hughes.  

PP2 Kuz, Horvat, Podz,  Hogz, OEL (maybe Pearson instead of Hogz?)

 

Kuzmenko plays a very similar role to Boeser's spot on the PP so he would be a natural fit. Horvat moving from bumper on PP1 down to PP2 might disrupt things a little. 

I think these 2 PP units could function in a very similar way and BB should just give them 1 minute each.  More goals might get scored this way.

 

I wonder how often our PP1 unit scores after staying out past a minute? 

I'm sure our execs are on top of that stat as well. 

I feel like if both units knew they only had 1 minute, we'd see a lot more urgency with more pucks being directed at the net.  The lack of urgency on PP1 kills me sometimes

 

Ya I’m not so sure about taking the #1 pp goal scorer off ur top line just for the sake of having 2 pp line. Spreading the Pp out or not I don’t see it making a difference in terms of percentage.. pp1 scores less? Pp2 scores off? All it does is make some ppl stats better some worse. Don’t think garland is suited to playing that bumper position 

[CanucksJay]

2 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

Ya I’m not so sure about taking the #1 pp goal scorer off ur top line just for the sake of having 2 pp line. Spreading the Pp out or not I don’t see it making a difference in terms of percentage.. pp1 scores less? Pp2 scores off? All it does is make some ppl stats better some worse. Don’t think garland is suited to playing that bumper position 

LOL you're so right

I'm trying so hard to get OEL involved but it literally looks like there's no room for him 

[Canucks Curse]

Miller and Dermott to NSH for Fabbro, Jeannot, trenin 

 

nucks get tougher 

nucks get good young RHD

nucks get good young 3C

 

nsh gets all American forward as insurance cuz forsberg is gonna walk 

[canuck73_3]

Just now, Canucks Curse said:

Miller and Dermott to NSH for Fabbro, Jeannot, trenin 

 

nucks get tougher 

nucks get good young RHD

nucks get good young 3C

 

nsh gets all American forward as insurance cuz forsberg is gonna walk 

This might be one of my favourite proposals so far, love Jeannot and Trenin. 

[stawns]

3 hours ago, Shayster007 said:

OEL as it plays out right now is a 2nd pair D. He plays pp2, and plays behind QH. It would not cost the same amount to acquire, or pay another top 4 dman. As early as this year, it's possible that our only real defensive prospect in Rathbone could have been able to step into that role (not saying he's ready, more just pointing out that he now doesn't really have a spot on the team unless we are planning on running 3 offense first lefties on D)

 

Garland was good, but not great. Again, he's not in the position to be playing top minutes nor top pp time. I like him as a player and he makes our team better, as does OEL. 

 

The alternative to this trade was, running with the aging players on our roster and likely having another bad year. Having Guenther in our back pocket, who without a doubt would be this organizations top prospect. Having likely a better first round pick this year (not to mention our 2nd this year to help with our prospect situation). On top of that, we would have plenty of cap space opening up for Miller, Boeser, or targeting cap strapped teams who may need to dump players.

 

That trade was a short sighted move in my eyes, and nothing I have seen or anything anyone has said has been able to change my opinion on that so far. If OEL comes in next year after a full off season of practicing RD to be a top pair D with Quinn that would help. If Garland is traded for better assets, or comes in next year and plays legit top 6 minutes, that would be great. If both those things play out, it's possible my mind could change a little.

 

As of right now though, that was a move to make the team better short term, and while it worked, it didn't work nearly well enough. We still didn't make the playoffs, and moving forward the team is in worse shape cap wise then we would be without the trade. There is a reason why Ruthford time after time says the teams number one priority is trying to create cape space.

He plays behind QH on the pp, but 5v5 hrs pretty much the go to guy