Miller is a core player

[Junkyard Dog]

1 minute ago, cdgraham said:

So we should therefore get rid of our best forward in order to.. improve? 

We need to consider what are our best long-term options when trying to build a long-term contending team with most the core being under 25.
 

Especially when there are significant holes on the roster that can’t be addressed as is, by just getting rid of the lesser tier players or praying the cap goes up. 
 

Especially when we haven’t proved capable of becoming a successful team with this core group as is. We have proven plenty that we can’t have success with this core group as is though. 

[khay]

11 hours ago, wildcam said:

At some point you have to make a hockey trade? Everyone knows we need a big RD man ?

we are up against cap and always will. We can’t keep all the top 7 players with salary cap not going up much in next 2–3 yrs.

.This summer 2022  - Boeser 7.5 million 

summer 2023 — 

Miller will be 30 wanting 7.5– 8 million X 5– 7yrs.. Lots to have invested.. Big decision in 2 yrs..

Horvat will be 28 — 6.7– 7.3 million X 5 -7yrs… Solid #2 centre

Hogland will be 23— 2.7–3.5 X 3 yrs

If EP becomes bonafide #1 center (thinking Datsyuk or Bergeron level), then we will have to make a choice between Miller or Horvat as we will have no way to keep both since EP will ask for 9+ mil. 

 

I think player of Boeser's caliber is needed on this team. A player who can just pot goals with that shot. Even when they are not having a great game, they can get a goal or two for you from the slot. 

 

Miller is a better offensive player than Horvat, but Horvat is such a great match up player. It's a hard call.

 

[HKSR]

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

Cool, you've just told me you're not worth taking seriously because instead of acknowledging my argument you jump right to making my train of thought out to be some kind of problem. But I'll humour you.

 

1. No, players don't immediately fall off in their 30's, but historically that's when the downtrend of most players takes place. D, forwards, goaltenders. Paying a guy millions of dollars on a lengthy contract and betting that he'll be one of the outliers is risky.

2. Yes, he's a great player right now. Already acknowledged that in the post you responded to. But expecting him to be that player for the rest of his career is unrealistic given his historical body of work. Players who flirt with PPG most of their career are the sort who get considered for the HOF.

3. Fans already knew the team was capable of more, it's why so many of em were calling for Green's head. It's also unlikely we see trades before Jim and co have a better idea of what we've got in this roster. He's also stated he's not interested in moving high picks, and likely ain't keen on moving players out from what's already a rather shallow prospect pool at the moment. What are you moving to plug holes if not futures? You're moving roster players. You don't replace Miller right away, folks have already told you this repeatedly in this thread. You bet on a more lengthy window and build around your younger core players as opposed to the shorter window of what remains of Miller's prime. 

5. Yup, you could move players out to facilitate paying Miller more but that doesn't negate the fact that signing a 30 year old player to a 7-8 year deal at 7-8M per is a huge risk for a player who's unlikely to to be able to produce enough to be worth it over the length of said deal. We're not a team who's been having success year after year, he's not part of a group who's won a cup or had numerous deep runs. He's a player who went to the second round with us once. Comparing him to extending guys like Marchand and Bergeron ain't remotely the same thing. There is risk in extending him, and a good chance you're signing a contract that'll become an anchor at some point. 

As I've mentioned so many times in this thread.  If he signs for $8M AAV, you do it.  I've shown the math works.  The cap is not staying at $82.5M in 2027-28. 

He is clearly a PPG player right now and is likely a bit above that.  He is literally one of the best offensive players in the entire NHL right now!

 

If he is ONLY a 0.5 or 0.6PPG player in his mid-30s but still contributes in ALL the other ways he does now, he is worth the 3 or 4 years of elite level performance we would get out of him.  Face it, in 6 to 7 years, Even Petey will be in his early 30s, and guys like Demko will be in his mid-30s and falling out of elite goaltender status.  What does it even matter then when we would be blowing up a lot of the team anyways in 6 or 7 years??

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Topcheeze86 said:

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

It would take 10-12 to keep him for 3 years.   He'd be leaving too much money on the table guaranteed ... right now he's playing like a 8.5-10 vet ... 12 if you include Tavares. 

[Canuck Luck]

12 hours ago, Coconuts said:

Yup, agreed. I'll continue to take heat for it but I still see him as the odd guy out, and if we're out of the mix leading up to the deadline he should absolutely be on the table. He'd bring us a huge haul that would go towards balancing out the rest of the roster and stocking our prospect pool. I've been arguing this in the Miller thread, but liking JT at almost 29 isn't the same as liking Miller at 32 and on. If he ain't at the peak of his powers now he likely will be soon. 

 

I'd be looking to get younger, and I'd be looking to improve our pool. Maybe something like Schneider+ from NYR. 

 

Winning is fun, but we're not going to win every game, sooner or later this team will face adversity again and then we'll really see what we've got. We're a fringe playoff team at best right now, we ain't contenders. If we miss out on the playoffs, and it's still likely, we'll have a season of Miller left and I'm skeptical we'll be able to retain him for a contract that ain't absurd for someone who's almost 30. Dude's going to want to get paaaaaid on what'll be his last big contract. Sell high, a team can only allocate so much to it's top 6 before it begins hurting the rest of the roster.

When JT Miller and Petey are both playing well they are both first line centres. Horvat is our solid second line centre.

 

No team, under the cap, can afford two first line centres unless they get rid of the quality 2nd line centre in Horvat and downgrade him like the Pens do or like the Coilers do.

 

The choice seems to be to either keep the 2 first line centers in Miller and Petey and trade Horvat or trade 1 of Miller or Petey. Everyone speculates Miller is the odd man out as he will get paid.

 

Miller is big, works hard, and gets points.

 

Maybe the option is to trade Petey. He is obviously very good and has the chance to become great. However, right now, Miller is the better player. 

 

We could get a huge haul for Petey. So maybe we trade him for a player like Chychrun. That would make a huge and positive change on D. 

 

I am not saying Arizona in any way would do this, but maybe that is the type of trade that is considered.

[IBatch]

10 minutes ago, HKSR said:

As I've mentioned so many times in this thread.  If he signs for $8M AAV, you do it.  I've shown the math works.  The cap is not staying at $82.5M in 2027-28. 

He is clearly a PPG player right now and is likely a bit above that.  He is literally one of the best offensive players in the entire NHL right now!

 

If he is ONLY a 0.5 or 0.6PPG player in his mid-30s but still contributes in ALL the other ways he does now, he is worth the 3 or 4 years of elite level performance we would get out of him.  Face it, in 6 to 7 years, Even Petey will be in his early 30s, and guys like Demko will be in his mid-30s and falling out of elite goaltender status.  What does it even matter then when we would be blowing up a lot of the team anyways in 6 or 7 years??

Yes you probably do that.   But whomever your taking off the grid also needs replacing.    Plus Hogs and Podz and others will need raises.   No matter how you want to slice it, one of Horvat, Miller or Brock need to go.    Miller for sure is more valuable now.   And he's going to get freaking paid massively for what he's done in Vancouver so far too.   Would you do 7.5 x 8?   That's an anchor for sure.   Not a terrible one - but an anchor nonetheless. 

[IBatch]

1 minute ago, Canuck Luck said:

When JT Miller and Petey are both playing well they are both first line centres. Horvat is our solid second line centre.

 

No team, under the cap, can afford two first line centres unless they get rid of the quality 2nd line centre in Horvat and downgrade him like the Pens do or like the Coilers do.

 

The choice seems to be to either keep the 2 first line centers in Miller and Petey and trade Horvat or trade 1 of Miller or Petey. Everyone speculates Miller is the odd man out as he will get paid.

 

Miller is big, works hard, and gets points.

 

Maybe the option is to trade Petey. He is obviously very good and has the chance to become great. However, right now, Miller is the better player. 

 

We could get a huge haul for Petey. So maybe we trade him for a player like Chychrun. That would make a huge and positive change on D. 

 

I am not saying Arizona in any way would do this, but maybe that is the type of trade that is considered.

For sure he's an option.  So is Brock Boeser.  

[Coconuts]

15 minutes ago, HKSR said:

As I've mentioned so many times in this thread.  If he signs for $8M AAV, you do it.  I've shown the math works.  The cap is not staying at $82.5M in 2027-28. 

He is clearly a PPG player right now and is likely a bit above that.  He is literally one of the best offensive players in the entire NHL right now!

 

If he is ONLY a 0.5 or 0.6PPG player in his mid-30s but still contributes in ALL the other ways he does now, he is worth the 3 or 4 years of elite level performance we would get out of him.  Face it, in 6 to 7 years, Even Petey will be in his early 30s, and guys like Demko will be in his mid-30s and falling out of elite goaltender status.  What does it even matter then when we would be blowing up a lot of the team anyways in 6 or 7 years??

Yeah, I get that. Most of us do. But "right now" is a huge part of why folks are debating in this thread to begin with. We don't have to see eye to eye, we don't even have to agree, that's fine. But some folks don't see him as a fit for what they view as our real window, a window built around our younger core, I'm one of em. Some folks think we should go for it sooner than later, that we can go deep within the next few years, you're clearly in that boat. We can go round in round in circles but it really doesn't mean anything. 

 

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he takes a step back as soon as next year, maybe he falters within the first year or two of his new deal. We've no way of knowing. But it's a risk, you see it as one worth taking, many of us see it the other way. Other players will need raises, other players will need to be brought in. It's not just about paying Miller, it's about managing the entire roster. 

 

As for between now and then, who knows? Nobody knows. It's all a calculated gamble based on stats and this and that. It matters because it's a risk, and you've got the the entire team to worry about, not just Miller. The window, shortening the window, extending it. Management has tough choices to make, but even they don't know. That's hockey. 

 

I think Miller's peaking right now, maybe this season and next. Most guys peak during their early to mid twenties, maybe a little later. Miller's there right now. Could he beat the odds and be an outlier? Maybe, but it's not something I'd be willing to gamble on. All either of us have are our opinions based on a slew of various things, neither of us know. All we can do is wait and see. 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Coconuts

[Coconuts]

18 minutes ago, Canuck Luck said:

When JT Miller and Petey are both playing well they are both first line centres. Horvat is our solid second line centre.

 

No team, under the cap, can afford two first line centres unless they get rid of the quality 2nd line centre in Horvat and downgrade him like the Pens do or like the Coilers do.

 

The choice seems to be to either keep the 2 first line centers in Miller and Petey and trade Horvat or trade 1 of Miller or Petey. Everyone speculates Miller is the odd man out as he will get paid.

 

Miller is big, works hard, and gets points.

 

Maybe the option is to trade Petey. He is obviously very good and has the chance to become great. However, right now, Miller is the better player. 

 

We could get a huge haul for Petey. So maybe we trade him for a player like Chychrun. That would make a huge and positive change on D. 

 

I am not saying Arizona in any way would do this, but maybe that is the type of trade that is considered.

Rutherford's on record saying he doesn't want to trade high draft picks, he's also said he'd be wanting to get younger in trades. Here's a quote related to bringing in older players "So, as we move along, if it takes a couple of years to bring it together to be more of a contender, then we’ve got the right age group that they can come together,” he said. “If I brought a veteran guy in — somebody in their 30s or something — maybe short term that’s different.”. If he wants to get younger and retain picks why would he trade a promising young player like Pettersson to retain a player pushing 30 in Miller? 

 

Pettersson just turned 23, he's got multiple seasons of flirting with PPG throughout his earliest 20's. Miller's had one PPG season and another where he flirted with PPG, he's PPG this far. He'll be 29 in March. Why would you narrow your window for an older player? We're a fringe playoff team right now, not a contender. 

 

Miller works hard, gets points, he'll also be 29 in March. Pettersson turned 23 a few days ago. He's not going to be the player is now forever, Pettersson has a better chance of producing long term given his history of production and given the fact he's got youth on his side.  

 

I view trading a young star who's flirted with PPG as young as 20 for a player who's likely to be on the downside of his career sooner than later as a huge mistake. You're gambling what's likely a lengthier window on a player who's likely peaking. 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Coconuts

[cdgraham]

41 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

We need to consider what are our best long-term options when trying to build a long-term contending team with most the core being under 25.
 

Especially when there are significant holes on the roster that can’t be addressed as is, by just getting rid of the lesser tier players or praying the cap goes up. 
 

Especially when we haven’t proved capable of becoming a successful team with this core group as is. We have proven plenty that we can’t have success with this core group as is though. 

6 wins in a row shows that there is plenty left to prove. 

 

You're overthinking it. If anything, we should trade pettersson. Would fetch similar return to Miller and at this point would be missed far less. Instant cap savings too. 

[cdgraham]

Just now, cdgraham said:

6 wins in a row shows that there is plenty left to prove. 

 

You're overthinking it. If anything, we should trade pettersson. Would fetch similar return to Miller and at this point would be missed far less. Instant cap savings too. 

FYI I know this is blasphemy, it's just a point. I don't want to trade pettersson and am not saying we should so don't hang me lol 

[cdgraham]

46 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Cool, you've just told me you're not worth taking seriously because instead of acknowledging my argument you jump right to making my train of thought out to be some kind of problem. But I'll humour you.

 

1. No, players don't immediately fall off in their 30's, but historically that's when the downtrend of most players takes place. D, forwards, goaltenders. Paying a guy millions of dollars on a lengthy contract and betting that he'll be one of the outliers is risky.

2. Yes, he's a great player right now. Already acknowledged that in the post you responded to. But expecting him to be that player for the rest of his career is unrealistic given his historical body of work. Players who flirt with PPG most of their career are the sort who get considered for the HOF.

3. Fans already knew the team was capable of more, it's why so many of em were calling for Green's head. It's also unlikely we see trades before Jim and co have a better idea of what we've got in this roster. He's also stated he's not interested in moving high picks, and likely ain't keen on moving players out from what's already a rather shallow prospect pool at the moment. What are you moving to plug holes if not futures? You're moving roster players. You don't replace Miller right away, folks have already told you this repeatedly in this thread. You bet on a more lengthy window and build around your younger core players as opposed to the shorter window of what remains of Miller's prime. 

5. Yup, you could move players out to facilitate paying Miller more but that doesn't negate the fact that signing a 30 year old player to a 7-8 year deal at 7-8M per is a huge risk for a player who's unlikely to to be able to produce enough to be worth it over the length of said deal. We're not a team who's been having success year after year, he's not part of a group who's won a cup or had numerous deep runs. He's a player who went to the second round with us once. Comparing him to extending guys like Marchand and Bergeron ain't remotely the same thing. There is risk in extending him, and a good chance you're signing a contract that'll become an anchor at some point. 

At this point miller's is more likely to produce at this rate then someone like pettersson. Idk, but I don't think we are at a stage where we can bet on potential anymore. 

 

Until pettersson actually surpasses Miller, we should be keeping Miller. 

[kilgore]

9 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Cool, you've just told me you're not worth taking seriously because instead of acknowledging my argument you jump right to making my train of thought out to be some kind of problem. But I'll humour you.

 

1. No, players don't immediately fall off in their 30's, but historically that's when the downtrend of most players takes place. D, forwards, goaltenders. Paying a guy millions of dollars on a lengthy contract and betting that he'll be one of the outliers is risky.

2. Yes, he's a great player right now. Already acknowledged that in the post you responded to. But expecting him to be that player for the rest of his career is unrealistic given his historical body of work. Players who flirt with PPG most of their career are the sort who get considered for the HOF.

3. Fans already knew the team was capable of more, it's why so many of em were calling for Green's head. It's also unlikely we see trades before Jim and co have a better idea of what we've got in this roster. He's also stated he's not interested in moving high picks, and likely ain't keen on moving players out from what's already a rather shallow prospect pool at the moment. What are you moving to plug holes if not futures? You're moving roster players. You don't replace Miller right away, folks have already told you this repeatedly in this thread. You bet on a more lengthy window and build around your younger core players as opposed to the shorter window of what remains of Miller's prime. 

5. Yup, you could move players out to facilitate paying Miller more but that doesn't negate the fact that signing a 30 year old player to a 7-8 year deal at 7-8M per is a huge risk for a player who's unlikely to to be able to produce enough to be worth it over the length of said deal. We're not a team who's been having success year after year, he's not part of a group who's won a cup or had numerous deep runs. He's a player who went to the second round with us once. Comparing him to extending guys like Marchand and Bergeron ain't remotely the same thing. There is risk in extending him, and a good chance you're signing a contract that'll become an anchor at some point. 

 

You put the "nuts" in Coconuts.  Sorry I had to.

 

The thing is, sure, most players do regress, at least somewhat, after say 32 or so. You are right.  And the same will be true of Miller. But its all about how much, and what part of his game. And does he still bring intangibles that would be difficult to replace.  And is what he brings back into the dressing room and on the ice worth losing on the risk of replacing him with someone else who can contribute as much? and in so many areas?  I say ...no.

 

He doesn't have to be our leading scorer in the future. In fact, we are probably not advancing much if he still is years from now. Hopefully Petey in particular, but also up n comers like Hogz and Podz, Garland and Hughes, should fill in our scoring. What Miller brings is irreplaceable. Tampa Bay must really be deep to have been able to let him go. Although they did get a pretty good compensation. What a find!  Nothing against Bo, as a person or as a player, but I honestly wish JT was our captain at this moment in time. I'm glad he at least gets to don an A this season.  There is something very special about JT, much like Alex Burrows, its hard to put down on paper. Its desire, dedication, passion, confidence, which all players have to some degree, but certain players just have these qualities instinctively as part of their DNA.

 

This is our window.  Rushed into it by JB management IMO, but what is the point in trading our leading scorer NOW?  We are not in rebuild mode....again....yet.  You also have to think about what yanking Miller out of our lineup will do to the chemistry, and confidence of the rest of the team. Look at what ripping Tanev and Marky, and even Stecher, off the team did to the team psyche.  Even if you get back something you think is more talented like Schmidt > Tanev, it doesn't always work out chemistry wise.

 

So IMO, even if we end up over paying MIller on any new contract's tail end, or have to buy him out, he is too important to this teams psyche and development in the next five or six years to not have him here. At any rate, we don't have to think about this until this time next year.  If he's showing signs he wants out, if gawd forbid, the team goes back to stinking up the joint, or his own play declines noticeably, then we can entertain moving him.  Yeah I know, he'd have less trade value if that happened then than now. But that risk of losing some of his trade value is worth avoiding losing what he could bring to this team and its chances at actually winning their first Cup. Miller is exactly the kind of player you hunt for if you are a playoff team.  If he's still producing and leading the team emotionally, along with Garland, who is another special kind of player, then of course you find a way to re-sign him. He's just too important to this team.

 

[Coconuts]

Just now, cdgraham said:

At this point miller's is more likely to produce at this rate then someone like pettersson. Idk, but I don't think we are at a stage where we can bet on potential anymore. 

 

Until pettersson actually surpasses Miller, we should be keeping Miller. 

It ain't just potential though. In his rookie season Pettersson put up 66 points in 71 games, in his second second he put up 66 points in 68 games and then another 18 points in 17 playoff games. In his third season he put up with 21 points in 26 games. All under Green, who's now been replaced with a more effective coaching staff. This season he's got 16 points in 31 games, why is such a small sample size enough to erase what he's done up til this point while being so young? 

 

Miller has one PPG season, he flirted with PPG last season, he's currently PPG right now. Pettersson just turned 23, Miller will be 29 in March. Why would you gamble on Miller continuing to maintain this pace into his 30's over a young player who's been better than Miller to begin his career and who's also been flirting with PPG while being roughly six years younger?

[Canuck Luck]

18 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Rutherford's on record saying he doesn't want to trade high draft picks, he's also said he'd be wanting to get younger in trades. Here's a quote related to bringing in older players "So, as we move along, if it takes a couple of years to bring it together to be more of a contender, then we’ve got the right age group that they can come together,” he said. “If I brought a veteran guy in — somebody in their 30s or something — maybe short term that’s different.”. If he wants to get younger and retain picks why would he trade a promising young player like Pettersson to retain a player pushing 30 in Miller? 

 

Pettersson just turned 23, he's got multiple seasons of flirting with PPG throughout his earliest 20's. Miller's had one PPG season and another where he flirted with PPG, he's PPG this far. He'll be 29 in March. Why would you narrow your window for an older player? We're a fringe playoff team right now, not a contender. 

 

Miller works hard, gets points, he'll also be 29 in March. Pettersson turned 23 a few days ago. He's not going to be the player is now forever, Pettersson has a better chance of producing long term given his history of production and given the fact he's got youth on his side.  

 

I view trading a young star who's flirted with PPG as young as 20 for a player who's likely to be on the downside of his career sooner than later as a huge mistake. You're gambling what's likely a lengthier window on a player who's likely peaking. 

My post was merely another way to think about it. Speculation...that is all.

[Coconuts]

Just now, Canuck Luck said:

My post was merely another way to think about it. Speculation...that is all.

Speculation is fine, but it doesn't line up with what Rutherford's actually said. And I've no reason not to believe him. 

[Coconuts]

4 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

You put the "nuts" in Coconuts.  Sorry I had to.

 

The thing is, sure, most players do regress, at least somewhat, after say 32 or so. You are right.  And the same will be true of Miller. But its all about how much, and what part of his game. And does he still bring intangibles that would be difficult to replace.  And is what he brings back into the dressing room and on the ice worth losing on the risk of replacing him with someone else who can contribute as much? and in so many areas?  I say ...no.

 

He doesn't have to be our leading scorer in the future. In fact, we are probably not advancing much if he still is years from now. Hopefully Petey in particular, but also up n comers like Hogz and Podz, Garland and Hughes, should fill in our scoring. What Miller brings is irreplaceable. Tampa Bay must really be deep to have been able to let him go. Although they did get a pretty good compensation. What a find!  Nothing against Bo, as a person or as a player, but I honestly wish JT was our captain at this moment in time. I'm glad he at least gets to don an A this season.  There is something very special about JT, much like Alex Burrows, its hard to put down on paper. Its desire, dedication, passion, confidence, which all players have to some degree, but certain players just have these qualities instinctively as part of their DNA.

 

This is our window.  Rushed into it by JB management IMO, but what is the point in trading our leading scorer NOW?  We are not in rebuild mode....again....yet.  You also have to think about what yanking Miller out of our lineup will do to the chemistry, and confidence of the rest of the team. Look at what ripping Tanev and Marky, and even Stecher, off the team did to the team psyche.  Even if you get back something you think is more talented like Schmidt > Tanev, it doesn't always work out chemistry wise.

 

So IMO, even if we end up over paying MIller on any new contract's tail end, or have to buy him out, he is too important to this teams psyche and development in the next five or six years to not have him here. At any rate, we don't have to think about this until this time next year.  If he's showing signs he wants out, if gawd forbid, the team goes back to stinking up the joint, or his own play declines noticeably, then we can entertain moving him.  Yeah I know, he'd have less trade value if that happened then than now. But that risk of losing some of his trade value is worth avoiding losing what he could bring to this team and its chances at actually winning their first Cup. Miller is exactly the kind of player you hunt for if you are a playoff team.  If he's still producing and leading the team emotionally, along with Garland, who is another special kind of player, then of course you find a way to re-sign him. He's just too important to this team.

 

Depends, if he does regress, and he's likely to, is it worth having what could be an anchor of a contract for "intangibles"? You can pay less for intangibles and leadership. Leadership on this team ain't exclusive to JT Miller. You ain't, but folks make it out as if he brings something to the team that Garland isn't also bringing. You can have players on the team like Miller and not have them be Miller. Is what he brings to the room and on the ice worth losing him? It's not about losing him, or even replacing him, it's about getting value for him and gambling on the future. Are we winning with Miller? Right now? Yes, we're also still a longshot to make the playoffs any way you spin it. If he's traded to you replace him? Of course not, it ain't that easy and nobody's arguing that, but you bet on a lengthier window built around younger pieces of the core. The team ain't thrown into a static situation upon losing Miller, there would be other moves going forward. 

 

I don't agree that what he brings is irreplaceable. What does he bring that's so irreplaceable? Heart? Talent? Emotion? Garland brings all those things too, as do other players on the team. If the team falls to pieces without one player that'd say a lot about the rest of the team. Miller was good in Tampa, but he wasn't what we've seen now. If he had been they'd likely have moved someone else. As for how you feel about Miller, those are your feelings and I ain't gonna argue with those. 

 

Our window ain't a static thing, our window could be changed. Benning did what he did, that doesn't mean Rutherford and co are obligated to keep the status quo going. If we're out of the playoff race near the deadline, and there's still a good chance we will be, Miller absolutely should be on the table. It also depends on who management views as the core going forward, you may see Miller as a future core piece but don't be surprised going forward if management sees it otherwise because it's entirely possible. Maybe they see things the way you do, that ain't a sure thing though. Could be they want to build around the younger core and look to extend our window by acquiring prospects and draft picks, by insulating our young core while looking to make way for the coming waves of future talent. 

 

I disagree, he's not so important that their psyche would be irreversibly damaged by his leaving. These are professionals, they've all seen teammates come and go, they've worked their entire lives to get where they are. They aren't going to fall to pieces over JT Miller. And I disagree, if we're out of the race closer to the deadline we should absolutely be looking hard at moving him because his value will never be higher than it is this season as a trade piece. Two seasons at 5.25M, two potential runs, that's more valuable to someone who fancies themselves a contender than a single season. It's better value, it's worth more. 

 

 

 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

20 minutes ago, cdgraham said:

6 wins in a row shows that there is plenty left to prove. 

 

You're overthinking it. If anything, we should trade pettersson. Would fetch similar return to Miller and at this point would be missed far less. Instant cap savings too. 

6 wins in a row and I am overthinking it?

 

Trading Petterson would go against what Rutherford has stated. We want to get younger and build a core that can have long-term success. A long-term contender. We try to keep Miller we have to trade one of the younger guys.

 

 

[HKSR]

12 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Depends, if he does regress, and he's likely to, is it worth having what could be an anchor of a contract for "intangibles"? You can pay less for intangibles and leadership. Leadership on this team ain't exclusive to JT Miller. You ain't, but folks make it out as if he brings something to the team that Garland isn't also bringing. You can have players on the team like Miller and not have them be Miller. Is what he brings to the room and on the ice worth losing him? It's not about losing him, or even replacing him, it's about getting value for him and gambling on the future. Are we winning with Miller? Right now? Yes, we're also still a longshot to make the playoffs any way you spin it. If he's traded to you replace him? Of course not, it ain't that easy and nobody's arguing that, but you bet on a lengthier window built around younger pieces of the core. The team ain't thrown into a static situation upon losing Miller, there would be other moves going forward. 

 

I don't agree that what he brings is irreplaceable. What does he bring that's so irreplaceable? Heart? Talent? Emotion? Garland brings all those things too, as do other players on the team. If the team falls to pieces without one player that'd say a lot about the rest of the team. Miller was good in Tampa, but he wasn't what we've seen now. If he had been they'd likely have moved someone else. As for how you feel about Miller, those are your feelings and I ain't gonna argue with those. 

 

Our window ain't a static thing, our window could be changed. Benning did what he did, that doesn't mean Rutherford and co are obligated to keep the status quo going. If we're out of the playoff race near the deadline, and there's still a good chance we will be, Miller absolutely should be on the table. It also depends on who management views as the core going forward, you may see Miller as a future core piece but don't be surprised going forward if management sees it otherwise because it's entirely possible. Maybe they see things the way you do, that ain't a sure thing though. Could be they want to build around the younger core and look to extend our window by acquiring prospects and draft picks, by insulating our young core while looking to make way for the coming waves of future talent. 

 

I disagree, he's not so important that their psyche would be irreversibly damaged by his leaving. These are professionals, they've all seen teammates come and go, they've worked their entire lives to get where they are. They aren't going to fall to pieces over JT Miller. And I disagree, if we're out of the race closer to the deadline we should absolutely be looking hard at moving him because his value will never be higher than it is this season as a trade piece. Two seasons at 5.25M, two potential runs, that's more valuable to someone who fancies themselves a contender than a single season. It's better value, it's worth more. 

 

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples of packages you think JT Miller would fetch if we traded him now (presumably at his peak)?

 

I'm just curious, because I've gone through scenarios in my head, and honestly can't think of any trade partners willing to give up what JT Miller is worth that wouldn't result in a trade in the loss column for GMJR and Co.

[cdgraham]

39 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

It ain't just potential though. In his rookie season Pettersson put up 66 points in 71 games, in his second second he put up 66 points in 68 games and then another 18 points in 17 playoff games. In his third season he put up with 21 points in 26 games. All under Green, who's now been replaced with a more effective coaching staff. This season he's got 16 points in 31 games, why is such a small sample size enough to erase what he's done up til this point while being so young? 

 

Miller has one PPG season, he flirted with PPG last season, he's currently PPG right now. Pettersson just turned 23, Miller will be 29 in March. Why would you gamble on Miller continuing to maintain this pace into his 30's over a young player who's been better than Miller to begin his career and who's also been flirting with PPG while being roughly six years younger?

I would keep both. 

 

Also Miller's has more ppg seasons then pettersson, who not to nit pick has none. Very close and flirting with it consistently, but look at petterssons stats the past 3 seasons and look at Miller's. Plus everything else Miller does well. 

 

Regardless I'd keep both. 

Edited December 17, 2021 by cdgraham