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

[TmanVan]

28 minutes ago, stawns said:

yes, probably 65% of the league........the guys you have to have to win Championships.  Huge contracts should be a reward for years of consistently high level play, not forwhat they might do in the future.  I'd like to see a graduated system where young players get a % raise on each contract and where a bonus for hitting incentives that is counted for their raise and with term limits.

 

I don't see anything wrong with a system where the cap is more evenly distributed.

So... To get anything done between the NHL and the NHLPA both sides would need to feel like they are winning. 

 

There would be a simple give and take solution to this all. Currently teams own a players rights for 7 years played, or the age of 27, whatever comes first. 

 

You want to increase the Rookie deal to 4 years instead of 3 so you don't have to pay these kids massive amounts of money right away? Then they are ufas after 6 years instead of 7. 

 

You want to make it so a rookie deal is 5 years? Alright, well 5 years of team control is all you get then. Ufa at 25 instead of 27. 

 

Edit: 

 

The rookie deal could be weighted as well so that all parties are happy. Years 1-3: standard rookie deal. Years 4 and 5: increased amount, meet somewhere in the middle to make both parties happy, but avoid these massive 8 year deals.

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by TmanVan

[JeremyCuddles]

5 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

GMs are under a lot more pressure than the players and have less leverage. I see the players taking advantage of GMs more now than ever.

 

I mean yea get as much as you can but don’t complain when there’s a lockout because player salaries have gotten too inflated. It’s up to players to regulate themselves too.

GMs get like no blame for lockouts. It's always the players fault. Lol. Also, it's not RFAs taking one year deals that are causing lockouts. Not even sure why you brought that up in regards to talking about RFAs. It's free agency and middling players getting too much money for too much term. Which is again, a GM issue of being stupid. Not an issue with RFAs.

[stawns]

Just now, TmanVan said:

So... To get anything done between the NHL and the NHLPA both sides would need to feel like they are winning. 

 

There would be a simple give and take solution to this all. Currently teams own a players rights for 7 years played, or the age of 27, whatever comes first. 

 

You want to increase the Rookie deal to 4 years instead of 3 so you don't have to pay these kids massive amounts of money right away? Then they are ufas after 6 years instead of 7. 

 

You want to make it so a rookie deal is 5 years? Alright, well 5 years of team control is all you get then. Ufa at 25 instead of 27. 

 

 

the ufa age could be used as a bargaining chip, for sure.  All I know is that the current system isnt working for the majority of the league and they matter just as much as kids with "potential"

[stawns]

Just now, N7Nucks said:

GMs get like no blame for lockouts. It's always the players fault. Lol. Also, it's not RFAs taking one year deals that are causing lockouts. Not even sure why you brought that up in regards to talking about RFAs. It's free agency and middling players getting too much money for too much term. Which is again, a GM issue of being stupid. Not an issue with RFAs.

It's the GM's fault nore than it is the players, by a long shot.  No self control, whatsoever.  

[DeNiro]

7 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

GMs get like no blame for lockouts. It's always the players fault. Lol. Also, it's not RFAs taking one year deals that are causing lockouts. Not even sure why you brought that up in regards to talking about RFAs. It's free agency and middling players getting too much money for too much term. Which is again, a GM issue of being stupid. Not an issue with RFAs.

Never connected RFAs taking one year deals to lockouts, you made that connection on your own.

 

Not saying it’s not on the GMs too, simply pointing out that the balance of power has definitely shifted in favour of the players. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is up for debate.

[Warhippy]

42 minutes ago, spook007 said:

In the ideal world both parties wins.

We make an off the record deal that we'll give him another 4-5 years at 6-8M once he isn't part of the cap, and even if he plays like a 3rd or 4th line centre, the only hurt is FAs check book. 

But if JR/PA gets sacked before Millers 4 year deal is up, the next GM might not be interested in any deals made behind the scenes... Or if Millers form drops to aforementioned level JR/PA may suddenly suffer from amnesia, if FA isn't prepared to pay a 3rd 4th line player 6-8M Miller could be on the street licking his wounds... 

 

Hence the gamble.... I'd love if they could make a deal like that, but I would be very surprised to see that happening.

This is also good.  The thing is, if we're talking 6+ years it takes him to that 35+ area where GMs under the new rules get nervous.

 

Look what Malkin, future HoF first ballot got for 3 years after a fight by the Pens.

 

Nothing against Miller, but he's no Pavelski or Malkin.  A 4-5 year deal gives him every opportunity to control his destiny and prove he's not a one hit wonder.  Not a potential buyout or buried contract.

 

In 4-5 years at age 33-34 he can sign a 3-5 year deal that seems him play to retirement at a good clip to lad his pockets.

 

27 minutes ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

Well this is the way it should really work.  I wished the NHL had a ceiling of a 3-5 year contract.  It's a business that the NHL wants to succeed and no market loves seeing a player being a deadweight anchor with an overpaid contract for too many years.  Too many guys are getting paid for their potential instead of their current level and it's all about the pressure that a team may lose them.  The game itself would also be better if more guys were in contract years being more accountable to themselves.  Makes for an interesting off-season too.  

 

A guy like Miller I wouldn't worry about from a mental perspective.  I think he'll give it his all regardless.  It's his age that is the concern.

Again, that's where the age 33-34 contract comes in.  Skirts the 35+ buyout issues and ensures he earns that next contract while still banking $30+ million over 4 years 

 

If he performs he'll get another $7+ million contract for 3-4 years

 

If he doesn't he'll still get a $5.5+ million contract for what he can still do.

 

I'd hesitate to way more GMs are hesitating to trade for guys in his position because of that term/aav potential and the risks they bring 

[Jester13]

12 minutes ago, stawns said:

It's the GM's fault nore than it is the players, by a long shot.  No self control, whatsoever.  

"If I don't pay up, my competitor will."

 

It's essentially an arms race. 

[Sbriggs]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Sure,  but why wouldn’t Miller just sign a seven year deal July 1, 2023 for 50-60 million?  

What if he has a bad season or gets hurt? That is taking a chance for sure

[King Heffy]

43 minutes ago, stawns said:

clearly it doesn't

 

back on topic, would you, or anyone, do Severson and Mercer for Miller straight up?

 

Hell yes.  I love Mercer; he can step in as the third line center and has a much higher ceiling.  Fantastic work ethic and hockey sense remind me a little of Point.

[Alflives]

11 minutes ago, Sbriggs said:

What if he has a bad season or gets hurt? That is taking a chance for sure

Yup.  He’s taking a risk not accepting the 45 million (over 6 years) JR is rumoured to be offering. 

[KirkSave]

54 minutes ago, stawns said:

back on topic, would you, or anyone, do Severson and Mercer for Miller straight up

I would be greedy and also ask for one of their RD prospects in Mukmaduhlin or Nemec too but if they only offer the 2 pieces coming back I would probably take the deal but give the Rangers a call and see if they want it with Kakko and Schneider before I sign on the dotted line

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, stawns said:

I'd take Bennett in Van any day

Ditto. I so badly wanted to swap him and Virtanen when Bennett was asking for a trade out of Calgary and Virtanen still had some trade value. Would have even added a bit.

 

What if.... Sigh

[Angry Goose]

The Tkachuk trade (w extension) only confirms that presumed haul JT would fetch is far from guaranteed to happen.    

 

Its going to be a risky bet holding onto him.  Hope it works out though.  

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, Angry Goose said:

The Tkachuk trade (w extension) only confirms that presumed haul JT would fetch is far from guaranteed to happen.    

 

Its going to be a risky bet holding onto him.  Hope it works out though.  

Can you elaborate?

[Angry Goose]

19 minutes ago, stawns said:

Can you elaborate?

Tkachuk at his age and upside with an extension in place is IMO at the very high end as far as premium assets go.

 

CGY got two expiring contracts, a prospect and a first. Depending on what happens with the soon to be UFAs I think will matter with how the trade is evaluated but as it stands, CGY got far from a guaranteed haul for MT.  

 

Contextually it seems like a depressed market (for sellers). The past few big trades shows a reluctance by GMs to give up a ton of high end futures.

 

As the saying goes though, all it takes is one GM to change that but as it stands, Im not banking on JTM fetching a massive haul.  And there is risk hanging onto him in the hopes of a big trade. But I understand from mgmts perspective that they need to get value

back as well.  So for example if there is any merit to the following rumour, I would be ecstatic  if the Canucks could pry Newhook OR Byram from the avs (unlike the newhook + byram + 1st a lot of people said would make them CONSIDER a trade, which seems crazy in hindsight)

Edited July 24, 2022 by Angry Goose
typo

[wai_lai416]

7 minutes ago, Angry Goose said:

Tkachuk at his age and upside with an extension in place is IMO at the very high end as far as premium assets go.

 

CGY got two expiring contracts, a prospect and a first. Depending on what happens with the soon to be UFAs I think will matter with how the trade is evaluated but as it stands, CGY got far from a guaranteed haul for MT.  

 

Contextually it seems like a depressed market (for sellers). The past few big trades shows a reluctance by GMs to give up a ton of high end futures.

 

As the saying goes though, all it takes is one GM to change that but as it stands, Im not banking on JTM fetching a massive haul.  And there is risk hanging into him in the hopes of a big trade. But I understand from mgmts perspective that they need to get value

back as well.  So for example if there is any merit to the following rumour, I would be exstatic if the Canucks could pry Newhook OR Byram from the avs (unlike the newhook + byram + 1st a lot of people said would make them CONSIDER a trade, which seems crazy in hindsight)

Dunno how u can say it’s far from a guaranteed haul. 2 expiring player yes. But even if they don’t re-sign and Calgary not stupid and holds on to them and let them walk. Those 2 will guarantees them multiple 1st plus prospect at the TDL. Hub along will be worth as much as Miller as a rental at the deadline

[Angry Goose]

13 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

Dunno how u can say it’s far from a guaranteed haul. 2 expiring player yes. But even if they don’t re-sign and Calgary not stupid and holds on to them and let them walk. Those 2 will guarantees them multiple 1st plus prospect at the TDL. Hub along will be worth as much as Miller as a rental at the deadline

No idea how they perform in CGY though. If they dont fare well that can definitely impact their TDL value.  Guaranteed is probably not the wording Id use at this point.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Angry Goose
king of typos

[Jester13]

We're starting to debate semantics, which means we're getting close to 1,000!

 

[wai_lai416]

4 minutes ago, Angry Goose said:

No idea how they perform in CGY though. If they dont fare well that can definitely impact their TDL value.  Guarantee is probably not the wording Id use at this point.

even if huberdeau doesn't reach 100+ points this season.. he will go for a 1st + prospect for sure at the TDL.. the guy have been well over a ppg for the last 4 years.. even a declining giroux got more than that.. if he re-signs they get a great player.. unless u think he's all of a sudden going to go from a ppg game to a 50-60 point guy out of no where. Weegar is a RHD and a legit top 4 defenseman.. RHD that every team would want.. again unless they are injured or disappear off the face of the earth.. they are pretty much guaranteed to net u a 1st each + more if they are to be traded and not re-signed.

[Angry Goose]

3 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

We're starting to debate semantics, which means we're getting close to 1,000!

 

gatekeeping trade talk-must be getting close to a 1000!