Miller is a core player

[IBatch]

5 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Because of the overall impact he has on the team. 

 

Can you imagine if the Lightning looked at Stamkos and Palat and said, wow, I know they are still amazing players, but they're gonna be 30+ and we want to keep our playoff window open, so time to move them when guys like Point, Kucherov, and Vasilevsky are in or entering their prime. 

 

 

Who's Stamkos!   Guys a winner and had been since he entered the league.   One year - his rookie - and after that who's scored more goals per game?  Ovi... maybe Mathews but not many.   Who is Kucherov?   And sorry Demko, but who's Vasilevsky?   Nobody is.   

[Chris12345]

Signing guys into their mid 30s is so 1997.

 

Sure he's awesome but nothing over 33.

 

Also this core thing is old. If the return is good enough move anyone. 

[HKSR]

4 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Who's Stamkos!   Guys a winner and had been since he entered the league.   One year - his rookie - and after that who's scored more goals per game?  Ovi... maybe Mathews but not many.   Who is Kucherov?   And sorry Demko, but who's Vasilevsky?   Nobody is.   

I think you missed the point.  The point is if Tampa had the same mentality, they would have dumped their aging players to 'keep the window' open.  They didn't, and they still don't.  They keep them if it means the team has a better chance. 

 

THAT is the difference between a winning culture and one that HOPES they can win within a window. 

 

The Canucks will have a Vezina calibre goalie in Demko, a Norris quality defenceman in Hughes, and a collection of possibly the deepest Top 9 this team has seen in decades, and yet we still just worry about keeping a playoff window open? 

 

If the team we see on the ice now is the real deal, we go for it. 

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by HKSR

[Jester13]

12 minutes ago, shiznak said:

Anything below a 4th/5th round pick is basically negative value.

 

 

Wouldn't negative value mean we give up something for a team to take him?

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Nick Paul isn't replacing Miller or his offensive production. He's maintaining C depth and grit, ability to PK, win draws etc.

 

You don't replace Miller. Not easily/readily anyway. Perhaps eventually with a prospect, trade etc. Podkolzin likely fills a similar role eventually. But right now you simply don't. You sacrifice the right now for the 2 years from now with the team more fleshed out and guys like Petey, Hughes, Podkolzin, Hoglander etc are in their actual primes and complimented with cheaper younger pieces you get from trading Miller... instead of a 30+, expensive, wearing and slowing down Miller.

 

Do you want to be slightly better right now when we're not ready to contend, or better when we are? That's what it really comes down to.

Bingo.   Miller isn't and won't ever be a top level player - but since we got him, absolutely has been playing like one.   16th overall i'm scoring last time i checked, maybe he's now 15th!!?  Since he arrived.   Ahead of Tavares - and Zinbaenjad and some other big names like Stone.   ALL ... everyone of them, got massive deals.   Sure Miller is older but markets every Summer are what they are, and you can bet some GM will offer him the entire moon and sun.  And some of those markets won't be taxed 53% like ours, instead 36.4-42%...a huge difference in net pay, in his home country.   Why TO overpaid, and also why SJ overpays too (jock tax in Cali).  We have to be prepared for that.   Why would he not take the money?   Do you think he won't?  I don't.   

[86Viking]

Come July 1st, Canucks NEED to call JT Millers agent and ask what the term and cap hit it would cost to lock him up. If he wants 7 or 8 years north of 8m, man that would make me a bit worried. 4-6 years around 8m I would be okay with knowing that his last couple years he might dip in production.

 

If JT wants 9m or more and long term, Canucks need to trade him as he is a VALUABLE trade chip and could help bring in assets to continue helping our team for years down the road. We CAN'T let him walk as a UFA for FREE!!!

[Topcheeze86]

To win cups u have to have older vets like him and hes not even very old guy wears his heart on his sleeve i love his intensity and compete level hes a beauty 

 

what would u guys do for contract offers to get him to stay? 
 

3yrs 6-5 to 7m? 
 

i feel if he was on a top team hed be buried on a 3rd line role tbh he excels here as a leader going elsewhere his role would be smaller

[shiznak]

3 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Wouldn't negative value mean we give up something for a team to take him?

Not necessarily.

 

Negative value, could mean their value wasn’t as great as it was, when you acquired them. 

[Jester13]

1 minute ago, shiznak said:

Not necessarily.

 

Negative value, could mean their value wasn’t as great as it was, when you acquired them. 

Pretty sure you have this wrong. They may have diminished value, but negative value means we pay someone something to take them. Maybe someone else can chime in to confirm?

[Rindiculous]

13 minutes ago, shiznak said:

I’m not undervaluing the player. It’s his contract, (while not that outrageous), that teams will shy away from.

 

Again, find a team that will need his service, willing to take on his contract.

 

Philadelphia basically begged Arizona to take on Ghost’s contract, while receiving nothing in return.

Ghost is so much different than Pearson/Dickinson.  They paid Ghost a sizeable contract and then he regressed into an AHL level player.  Pearson and Dickinson are NHL level players making less than Ghost.  That is the worst comparison imaginable.

[HKSR]

2 minutes ago, shiznak said:

Not necessarily.

 

Negative value, could mean their value wasn’t as great as it was, when you acquired them. 

 

Just now, Jester13 said:

Pretty sure you have this wrong. They may have diminished value, but negative value means we pay someone something to take them. Maybe someone else can chime in to confirm?

Uhhh yeah, I'm certain when people say negative value it means it costs the team something to get rid of them.

 

If a player is worth a 4th round pick, that means the value of the player is +4th round pick (positive).

 

If a player has negative value to the tune of a 1st round pick, then it costs player+1st round pick to move him.  In other words, the player is worth "-1st round pick".

[IBatch]

4 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I think you missed the point.  The point is if Tampa had the same mentality, they would have dumped their aging players to 'keep the window' open.  They didn't, and they still don't.  They keep them if it means the team has a better chance. 

 

THAT is the difference between a winning culture and one that HOPES they can win within a window. 

 

The Canucks will have a Vezina calibre goalie in Demko, a Norris quality defenceman in Hughes, and a collection of possibly the deepest Top 9 this team has seen in decades, and yet we still just worry about keeping a playoff window open? 

 

If the team we see on the ice now is the real deal, we go for it. 

 

I didn't miss the point at all.   We aren't at all built like TB is.   Sorry,  at best more like St. louis was/is.   I also love Miller and in a non-cap universe would love to keep him until he retires.   That's what players in their prime look like.   Good/great ones anyways.    Thing is we can't keep them all so have to make a choice.   We don't have no state tax like Tampa.   We are at a 17% disadvantage.  And he's from the US, and had lost his clauses and about 600k per year on the deal he signed since coming here too.  Sell high buy low.   Miller is amazing at 5.25 or whatever he's getting - but how amazing is he at 9.5 x 6 at his age? Not nearly as amazing.   Why not let another team take that on, and grab two firsts and a B prospect?  Or one first and an A prospect or something to help the team out when they are his age?  

[HKSR]

7 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

Come July 1st, Canucks NEED to call JT Millers agent and ask what the term and cap hit it would cost to lock him up. If he wants 7 or 8 years north of 8m, man that would make me a bit worried. 4-6 years around 8m I would be okay with knowing that his last couple years he might dip in production.

 

If JT wants 9m or more and long term, Canucks need to trade him as he is a VALUABLE trade chip and could help bring in assets to continue helping our team for years down the road. We CAN'T let him walk as a UFA for FREE!!!

This I can agree with.  If JT Miller does end up finishing Top 15 in NHL scoring and asks for $9.5M AAV, then yeah, we won't have a choice but to move him. 

 

But if he is willing to take an $8M AAV deal for 7 or 8 years, we have to do it.

[Me_]

Miller IS. à core player. 
 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Me_

[HKSR]

1 minute ago, IBatch said:

I didn't miss the point at all.   We aren't at all built like TB is.   Sorry,  at best more like St. louis was/is.   I also love Miller and in a non-cap universe would love to keep him until he retires.   That's what players in their prime look like.   Good/great ones anyways.    Thing is we can't keep them all so have to make a choice.   We don't have no state tax like Tampa.   We are at a 17% disadvantage.  And he's from the US, and had lost his clauses and about 600k per year on the deal he signed since coming here too.  Sell high buy low.   Miller is amazing at 5.25 or whatever he's getting - but how amazing is he at 9.5 x 6 at his age? Not nearly as amazing.   Why not let another team take that on, and grab two firsts and a B prospect?  Or one first and an A prospect or something to help the team out when they are his age?  

The point again was that you don't just dump players because of their age.  You look at what they bring to the table, and whether the cap hit makes sense.  I've shown that we can fit him in for $8M AAV, and that moving him would leave several gaps on the team (offensive output, leadership, grit, PP, PK, faceoffs, centre depth).  It would likely take 2 or 3 players to make up for those gaps.

 

Now, with that being said, if indeed he is looking for $9.5M AAV, I'm all aboard the trade train.  We couldn't afford that.  The most I think we could afford is $8M... MAYBE $8.5M depending on how other players progress.

[shiznak]

3 minutes ago, Rindiculous said:

Ghost is so much different than Pearson/Dickinson.  They paid Ghost a sizeable contract and then he regressed into an AHL level player.  Pearson and Dickinson are NHL level players making less than Ghost.  That is the worst comparison imaginable.

I wouldn’t say he regressed into an AHL level player.

 

He scored 37 points, in 70+ games after he signed his deal. The following season, he was plagued by injuries and only played in 40 games. In 2020-2021, he was on pace for another 40+ points. While averaging 19+ minutes a night, since signing his deal.

 

This trade was more to do, with Philly acquiring Ellis and Ristolainen.

[Rindiculous]

1 minute ago, shiznak said:

I wouldn’t say he regressed into an AHL level player.

 

He scored 37 points, in 70+ games after he signed his deal. The following season, he was plagued by injuries and only played in 40 games. In 2020-2021, he was on pace for another 40+ points. While averaging 19+ minutes a night, since signing his deal.

 

This trade was more to do, with Philly acquiring Ellis and Ristolainen.

Ghost could always put up points.  The reason why he was hated so much in Philly was his defense.  He was like Pouliot level bad defensively.  If Pearson or Dickinson were like say a Goldobin and making that much, I'd agree with the comparison.  But no, these guy are solid defensively while also good in an offensive role even if they don't put up points.

[shiznak]

2 minutes ago, Rindiculous said:

Ghost could always put up points.  The reason why he was hated so much in Philly was his defense.  He was like Pouliot level bad defensively.  If Pearson or Dickinson were like say a Goldobin and making that much, I'd agree with the comparison.  But no, these guy are solid defensively while also good in an offensive role even if they don't put up points.

So in return, they traded for a guy who is equally as bad as Ghost?

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

19 minutes ago, shiznak said:

Not necessarily.

 

Negative value, could mean their value wasn’t as great as it was, when you acquired them. 

 

17 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Pretty sure you have this wrong. They may have diminished value, but negative value means we pay someone something to take them. Maybe someone else can chime in to confirm?

I think @shiznak might be confusing "negative value" with "sunk cost".

[HKSR]

2 minutes ago, Rindiculous said:

Ghost could always put up points.  The reason why he was hated so much in Philly was his defense.  He was like Pouliot level bad defensively.  If Pearson or Dickinson were like say a Goldobin and making that much, I'd agree with the comparison.  But no, these guy are solid defensively while also good in an offensive role even if they don't put up points.

Pearson is severely underrated by Canucks fans.  He does so many little things that go unnoticed.  His compete level along the boards and in front of the net are what create the space for his linemates to excel.  It's no coincidence that Boeser is starting to find room to unleash his shot because he has 2 exceptional board battlers in his line in Miller and Pearson.