[Discussion] JT Miller, is he tradeable?

[JM_]

Just now, aGENT said:

Well exactly. This is also why I think the "trading Miller = giving up/rebuilding" argument doesn't hold a lot of water.

 

We have the pieces for a successful top 6 here. Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser, Hoglander, Garland, Podkolzin are all solid top 6 players moving forward. Never mind solid, complementary mid 6 players like Pearson and Dickenson

 

Particularly if we can complement them with a solid match up 3C like Paul.

 

Adding a player like Chytil in the mix in the top 9 and a player like Schneider to our D... As well as a lotto ticket late first pick, is far from "giving up/rebuilding".

 

 

Yeah, it might take a year or two to get back to "Miller level" but with the right pieces, I think we do (better even). Even if we don't directly "replace" him.

in an unintended way, Benning pulling off the Miller deal might be the thing this team needs. We can recover the 20-ish pick and get an RFA d or C that fits the team better anyway.

 

I do hope the team makes an actual run for the playoffs tho, so this might have to wait for the summer. Which likely means a lower return for Miller. 

 

This road trip looms big. If they go 1-4 or something like that then I think we'll see Miller moved, particularly if there's good initial discussions on a Boeser extension. 

 

I liked Benning, but I'm happy he's not here making the calls anymore, I don't know that he'd have the level head needed to make the right trade, too much pressure on him vs. JR.

 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

5 hours ago, aGENT said:

I don't think I'd do a deal for Miller to the AVS without Byram coming back personally... 

Byram has a lot more value than Miller though. Potential top 2 young LD already playing 2nd pairing with Girard having a good first full year.  If Miller was under 25 and an RFA at the end of his deal than for sure but I wouldn’t trade him if he was. 

 

I doubt they’d trade him for even Petey right now.  His potential is too great. With him their D-core is set for years. They have more than enough assets and flexibility with a good prospect pool and cap moving forward to add someone significant without losing a core roster piece. 
 

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, Coconuts said:

Huh, the more you know. I've always viewed him as more of a winger, or a converted center. 

 

He is, if Miller's moved out it absolutely is for futures. Whether that's for picks, prospects, or some combination thereof. If bringing back a roster player in a trade helps facilitate one, maybe, but I don't see that as something JR would be looking for. 

 

That's a big if unfortunately, at least this season if I were a betting man. EP likely needs a full summer of training and to actually be present for training camp, I think missing camp hurt him more than many of us thought it would. But it's not impossible, he's certainly talented enough. As for center depth, I dunno. For one, we don't have anyone in the lineup like Danault. Bo does okay as a matchup center, but his defensive qualities have always been a tad overrated, he's certainly no Kesler. He's a faceoff ace though, no question. I like having a high quality matchup centre, we never did find a replacement for Sutter and Beagle. Dickinson is miscast in that role, was played more as a wing in Dallas. I blame that one on Benning. 

 

Tampa's def high in the sky thinking, I like our forward group but our top six/nine certainly doesn't resemble anything close to what Tampa's had over the last few seasons. That's absolute best case scenario, and there's only one Tampa in the league. They're better than us at every aspect of the roster imo. Including goal, Vasi's nuts. 

 

I disagree on our window tbh, I don't see it as 4-5 years long. More like 7-8. Demko's 25, there's no reason he couldn't be a top guy til 32. Some goaltenders age better than others, Miller and Fluery have. Rinne did. Horvat's almost 25, but I see him being fine in his early 30's and we should be able to compete by then. There will be additions to our core between now and then too, younger ones I hope. I could see us making the playoffs next season, but I figure it'll be without Miller. And I think we'd honestly be fine without him, assuming EP can pick it up. I'm really not counting on them making it this season, I don't think they will despite this recent run. Maybe that's cynical of me, but eh. I'll root for em, but I don't see it happening. 

 

Drafting well, and actually holding on to our picks are going to be what extends any competitive window we have, not this trading first and second round picks bit we've seen consistently for years. I'm not saying you can't trade picks, but you've gotta balance drafting/development with competing. We're nowhere near an all in type of team. 

 

Demko's the hardest piece to find imo, goaltenders are weird. Horvat's a fine 2C, a 1C on some teams even. EP's a weird one, but he's a top 6 talent. If he has to carry the bag as 2C for a bit so be it. Garland, Hoglander, Podz, Boeser, they're fine as wingers. Maybe Pearson too, depending on whether he's moved or not. Bring in a center who can PK well and who isn't dead weight offensively, a tough task but not impossible. Maybe try and improve on our 4C. Take a hard look at the defense too, I don't see Myers and Hamonic being there in a couple years, I see those two top four spots as probably our most pressing issue. 

 

Lots of ways to approach things, lots of ways to compete. With or without Miller even. Bottom line though is that if we want to bolster the roster that cap's probably coming out of the top six. Maybe it ends up being Boeser, but it's gonna have to be someone. If this roster as is has a strength it's it's top six. Hughes ain't going anywhere, neither is Demko, our bottom six and defense need upgrading, our top six simply makes the most sense. 

The window - as in the prime cap window, when these guys are mostly on their second contracts, is while EP and Demko are on their second deals.  Horvat will be 27 in April - he's in his prime prime right now...not to say he couldn't do more because yes he absolutely can with better wingers...he's done great for a couple years with Pearson and LE lol.    When we traded for Miller i thought awesome we just added another Horvat, but in his prime....feel Horvat has and will have more to give yet.   And also w

 

Maybe i should qualify it better - we have a 4/5 year window with maximum cap advantage, after that it will change.   And honestly i don't think we have a contending core as it is right now, 

[Coconuts]

8 minutes ago, IBatch said:

The window - as in the prime cap window, when these guys are mostly on their second contracts, is while EP and Demko are on their second deals.  Horvat will be 27 in April - he's in his prime prime right now...not to say he couldn't do more because yes he absolutely can with better wingers...he's done great for a couple years with Pearson and LE lol.    When we traded for Miller i thought awesome we just added another Horvat, but in his prime....feel Horvat has and will have more to give yet.   And also w

 

Maybe i should qualify it better - we have a 4/5 year window with maximum cap advantage, after that it will change.   And honestly i don't think we have a contending core as it is right now, 

And that's fair, the ages make sense

 

I don't think we've got a contending group tbh, I have no problem saying that, it's part of why I look to the future 

 

Could we have a group good enough that it should be a playoff team? Absolutely. But contender? Not as this roster is currently constructed. Some folks probably view me as negative, but I'm willing to be pragmatic and call a spade a spade. I don't think we've got enough to win it all. Even if we miraculously made it to the final, I don't see us beating Tampa/Carolina/Florida/Washington/New York in a seven game series. Particularly those first three. 

 

Talk of contending drives me nuts when this roster/team has yet to show it can even make the playoffs consistently. We had a contender, we almost got over the hump, and he haven't had a consistent playoff team since those early 2010's teams fell off. I'm not gonna buy contending until the Canucks can show me that, I don't buy into that "anything can happen come playoff time" LA cup run style dreaming. It's happened what.. once? Impossible, no. Likely? Hell no. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Coconuts

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Byram has a lot more value than Miller though. Potential top 2 young LD already playing 2nd pairing with Girard having a good first full year.  If Miller was under 25 and an RFA at the end of his deal than for sure but I wouldn’t trade him if he was. 

 

I doubt they’d trade him for even Petey right now.  His potential is too great. With him their D-core is set for years. They have more than enough assets and flexibility with a good prospect pool and cap moving forward to add someone significant without losing a core roster piece. 
 

I'd consider adding personally.

[Junkyard Dog]

54 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'd consider adding personally.

You'd need to add some considerable young pieces which I don't think we could afford to do. That's probably the only thing that could pry Byram out of there. I would think they'd trade him only for young players that can be a part of their core long-term like he would be. Byram doesn't solve our RD problems either. Girard plays both sides and is on the right side with Byram. 

 

Only thing I can think of that might interest Avs for Byram is not Miller, but rather a package of Hog and Pod. Sets them up winger wise but that doesn't settle their C problems long-term though, neither does Miller. Newhook looks like he can solve that C issue long-term but he's just starting out. That's why I figured Miller would be a good stop gap in the meantime but he's not worth Byram, a package of prospects/picks for sure. Also creates a hole for the Avs at D in the short and long-term.

 

They're different from a team like the Rangers who might want Miller to help push them to become a consistent playoff team or a team like the Bruins or Penguins who's window is diminishing. They're in that state where they can contend now and continue to be a good team for a while. They are loaded with young talent and most of the veteran and core players they have are 26 or under. They also have the flexibility that they don't need to trade any core members to solve their limited issues. Their management and scouting staff have done a tremendous job.

 

I reckon any move they make that trades a core player has to benefit the long-term as much as the short-term given how wide of a window they've created. They have to be getting of young player of Byram's calibre back. They have the assets to add short to mid term veteran pieces without trading core pieces as evident with the Toews and Kuemper trades. 

[aGENT]

28 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

You'd need to add some considerable young pieces which I don't think we could afford to do. That's probably the only thing that could pry Byram out of there. I would think they'd trade him only for young players that can be a part of their core long-term like he would be. Byram doesn't solve our RD problems either. Girard plays both sides and is on the right side with Byram. 

 

Only thing I can think of that might interest Avs for Byram is not Miller, but rather a package of Hog and Pod. Sets them up winger wise but that doesn't settle their C problems long-term though, neither does Miller. Newhook looks like he can solve that C issue long-term but he's just starting out. That's why I figured Miller would be a good stop gap in the meantime but he's not worth Byram, a package of prospects/picks for sure. Also creates a hole for the Avs at D in the short and long-term.

 

They're different from a team like the Rangers who might want Miller to help push them to become a consistent playoff team or a team like the Bruins or Penguins who's window is diminishing. They're in that state where they can contend now and continue to be a good team for a while. They are loaded with young talent and most of the veteran and core players they have are 26 or under. They also have the flexibility that they don't need to trade any core members to solve their limited issues. Their management and scouting staff have done a tremendous job.

 

I reckon any move they make that trades a core player has to benefit the long-term as much as the short-term given how wide of a window they've created. They have to be getting of young player of Byram's calibre back. They have the assets to add short to mid term veteran pieces without trading core pieces as evident with the Toews and Kuemper trades. 

Miller + Rathbone? Hughes moves right.

 

But I agree, for all the other reasons, I don't think they're a great fit trade-wise.

Edited January 11, 2022 by aGENT

[BigTramFan]

5 hours ago, aGENT said:

Well exactly. This is also why I think the "trading Miller = giving up/rebuilding" argument doesn't hold a lot of water.

 

We have the pieces for a successful top 6 here. Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser, Hoglander, Garland, Podkolzin are all solid top 6 players moving forward. Never mind solid, complementary mid 6 players like Pearson and Dickenson

 

Particularly if we can complement them with a solid match up 3C like Paul.

 

Adding a player like Chytil in the mix in the top 9 and a player like Schneider to our D... As well as a lotto ticket late first pick, is far from "giving up/rebuilding".

 

 

Yeah, it might take a year or two to get back to "Miller level" but with the right pieces, I think we do (better even). Even if we don't directly "replace" him.

This is assuming Miller was traded...

 

I don't know about N Paul. Seems to do alright on the defensive side and PK but his production has dried up.

 

I like the look of Nico Sturm as a younger pending UFA who could step into the 3C role (not played as a matchup line). And then maybe a veteran such as Stepan to play more of a match up role on a match up 4th line. Depending on who is the return for Miller, this might also give us the cap space to target one of Colorado's expiring UFA wingers like Nichushkin.

 

Lineup something like this:

 

Garland Horvat Boeser

Nichushkin Pettersson Podkolzin

Pearson Sturm Hoglander

Dickinson Stepan Lammikko (match up line)

(Lockwood)

 

OEL Myers

Hughes (Top 4 D from Miller trade)

Schenn Poolman

Rathbone Burroughs

 

[aGENT]

38 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

This is assuming Miller was traded...

 

I don't know about N Paul. Seems to do alright on the defensive side and PK but his production has dried up.

 

I like the look of Nico Sturm as a younger pending UFA who could step into the 3C role (not played as a matchup line). And then maybe a veteran such as Stepan to play more of a match up role on a match up 4th line. Depending on who is the return for Miller, this might also give us the cap space to target one of Colorado's expiring UFA wingers like Nichushkin.

 

Lineup something like this:

 

Garland Horvat Boeser

Nichushkin Pettersson Podkolzin

Pearson Sturm Hoglander

Dickinson Stepan Lammikko (match up line)

(Lockwood)

 

OEL Myers

Hughes (Top 4 D from Miller trade)

Schenn Poolman

Rathbone Burroughs

 

Yeah that happens sometimes when your a hard minute, matchup C. Offense isn't really what he's there for. And he has what, 5 less points than Sturm...? Hardly any difference I'm worried about when Paul brings other intangibles.

 

And my thinking is that we don't really have any "Pauls" in our prospect pool. We do however have a few potential "Sturms" to grow in to that role. Ergo, acquiring a "Paul" might fill more of an organizational need.

 

Otherwise, both are fine targets. Hell, I'd happily add both if we have the cap and roster space!  Or some other, similar guys. I like Paul, IMO he's a target we should pursue, but I'm not married to JUST him being the only fit there.

 

And besides this 3rd/4th line thing frequently gets blurred. A matchup '4th' line frequently gets more minutes then the '3rd'... So it's it still the '4th' line then...?

Edited January 11, 2022 by aGENT

[IBatch]

15 hours ago, Coconuts said:

And that's fair, the ages make sense

 

I don't think we've got a contending group tbh, I have no problem saying that, it's part of why I look to the future 

 

Could we have a group good enough that it should be a playoff team? Absolutely. But contender? Not as this roster is currently constructed. Some folks probably view me as negative, but I'm willing to be pragmatic and call a spade a spade. I don't think we've got enough to win it all. Even if we miraculously made it to the final, I don't see us beating Tampa/Carolina/Florida/Washington/New York in a seven game series. Particularly those first three. 

 

Talk of contending drives me nuts when this roster/team has yet to show it can even make the playoffs consistently. We had a contender, we almost got over the hump, and he haven't had a consistent playoff team since those early 2010's teams fell off. I'm not gonna buy contending until the Canucks can show me that, I don't buy into that "anything can happen come playoff time" LA cup run style dreaming. It's happened what.. once? Impossible, no. Likely? Hell no. 

Yes we have a playoff contending team right now, that's 100% fair to say, too bad owners waited as long as they did or the odds of making the playoff this year would be excellent instead decent.   I totally get calling a spade a spade, that's how i feel most of the time too.   LA did it twice actually lol.   Missed inbetween too, won as a last seed and a 7th i think... hardly a regular season monster, definitely not a CHI or TB or PIT or WSH.   What St. Louis did was pretty freaking miraculous too.   Bottom in the league ... then a cup winner (although a couple years before they were a regular playoff team, not that they were a real "contender" either).    I disagree with that somewhat, because the difference between a good team and a contender is razor thin, same as a good team and a playoff contender these days.     Parity and cap era, it's much tougher to define who's going to win, and who's even a contender. 

 

Even pre-cap...in 1994 ... 1993 we were one of the best teams in the entire league, could consider us a contender even.   But 1994 the wheels fell off, part of that was missing Nedved and his 38 goals but it wasn't just that.   Then everything fell into place and we almost won a cup in what is still considered, the best final in modern hockey history (since expansion) ... two goals separated the series.   That team was also a better playoff team then regular season one, and beat two "contenders" on the way in CAL and TO.    Once the second season starts, anything can happen (heck we did beat St. Louis...who's at it again this year).   I agree we won't beat a cup final team like TB, CAR or Florida...but i've not lost hope, even after this long, that the seas can part and anything can happen come the post season, why i want a team that gets cracks at it every single year.    That's how we got to get swept by the NYI too...the seas parted along the way, better teams lost to worse teams for us.  

 

IF we make the playoffs this year - and that's still a big if, our winning percentage under Bruce would be something else.  Comparable to a contender really, or at least a very good team.   We are not St. Louis and haven't been battle tested enough (although Miller, Myers and Pearson have at least) so am not expecting some magical run.   But it's crucial that these guys get it.  And the chance to fight for a cup later. 

 

Edit:  That is why i wouldn't trade Miller if we are still in a spot or as close to one as we are now at the trade deadline.   Or Brock.   IF we are out because the wheels fell off ... then yes time to make adjustments.   And Miller makes the most sense to me at least. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by IBatch

[Coconuts]

6 hours ago, IBatch said:

Yes we have a playoff contending team right now, that's 100% fair to say, too bad owners waited as long as they did or the odds of making the playoff this year would be excellent instead decent.   I totally get calling a spade a spade, that's how i feel most of the time too.   LA did it twice actually lol.   Missed inbetween too, won as a last seed and a 7th i think... hardly a regular season monster, definitely not a CHI or TB or PIT or WSH.   What St. Louis did was pretty freaking miraculous too.   Bottom in the league ... then a cup winner (although a couple years before they were a regular playoff team, not that they were a real "contender" either).    I disagree with that somewhat, because the difference between a good team and a contender is razor thin, same as a good team and a playoff contender these days.     Parity and cap era, it's much tougher to define who's going to win, and who's even a contender. 

 

Even pre-cap...in 1994 ... 1993 we were one of the best teams in the entire league, could consider us a contender even.   But 1994 the wheels fell off, part of that was missing Nedved and his 38 goals but it wasn't just that.   Then everything fell into place and we almost won a cup in what is still considered, the best final in modern hockey history (since expansion) ... two goals separated the series.   That team was also a better playoff team then regular season one, and beat two "contenders" on the way in CAL and TO.    Once the second season starts, anything can happen (heck we did beat St. Louis...who's at it again this year).   I agree we won't beat a cup final team like TB, CAR or Florida...but i've not lost hope, even after this long, that the seas can part and anything can happen come the post season, why i want a team that gets cracks at it every single year.    That's how we got to get swept by the NYI too...the seas parted along the way, better teams lost to worse teams for us.  

 

IF we make the playoffs this year - and that's still a big if, our winning percentage under Bruce would be something else.  Comparable to a contender really, or at least a very good team.   We are not St. Louis and haven't been battle tested enough (although Miller, Myers and Pearson have at least) so am not expecting some magical run.   But it's crucial that these guys get it.  And the chance to fight for a cup later. 

 

Edit:  That is why i wouldn't trade Miller if we are still in a spot or as close to one as we are now at the trade deadline.   Or Brock.   IF we are out because the wheels fell off ... then yes time to make adjustments.   And Miller makes the most sense to me at least. 

The time to have fired Green should have been after this first homestand that went sideways or shortly after, they just let the string play out too long and I think that'll catch up to us eventually. And you're right, but my point was that they're the only team ever to win it all as an 8th seed as far as I know? They didn't sneak up on anyone the second time, they just weren't a set the world on fire regular season team. Those teams were build for the playoffs, they'd grind you down and come at you in waves. I can't remember which player said it, but they said LA's first liners would come at you like fourth liners. They just weren't your typical lower seed team, and I wish people would remember than when using them as an example. Not pointing fingers at you of course, but I've seen plenty of it since they won. 

 

The Blues were a bit of a weird case in that their roster was clearly underachieving, that tear they went on was still nuts and that's on them playing well and Binnington pulling a rabbit out of his ass that season. But they had the roster to do it, I'm not sure there's been a team make the final with a better D core than they had since, Tampa included. It's tougher to tell what the line between good and great is come playoff time, I'll give you that. I didn't think Dallas would beat Vegas, but somehow they pulled it off. 

 

Can't really touch on those teams outside of maybe a historical context, given I was like.. three years old when they went to that final in 94 haha.

 

If they somehow pull it off and get in they'll have to have been one of the hotter teams over the second half, I'll agree with you there. I mean, short of the rest of our division collapsing, and I don't see that happening. California's competing, and Calgary and Edmonton won't lose forever. I doubt we'd do much, but there's something to be said for just making it. Not all good things, because losing in the first round is just a bit further than no man's land, but there's something to be said. 

 

They might get their chance to let the string play out if they can convince Rutherford, but I can't help but feel they'll have to do a damn convincing job because I think he's leaning the other way. That's just speculation on my part, but given what he's said in interviews thus far I think his inclination is to build for a bit further down the road. 

[aGENT]

Wonder how many people will see the writing on the wall after this road trip? The Canucks desperately need to split valuable, aging assets in to (hopefully) more valuable, future assets a couple years from now, when our core is in its prime.

 

Miller is a great player now, but this team isn't good enough with him on it now. We need to worry about 2-7 years from now.

 

A franchise altering move is needed, here's hoping management picks the right return pieces.

Edited January 14, 2022 by aGENT

[Gurn]

Byram's value is not as high as it was before he left the team, recently, for "personal issues" that seem to be concussion related.

I hope he gets better, and never gets another tbi;  but  I would be reluctant to give away too much for this young fellow.

[Provost]

18 hours ago, aGENT said:

Wonder how many people will see the writing on the wall after this road trip? The Canucks desperately need to split valuable, aging assets in to (hopefully) more valuable, future assets a couple years from now, when our core is in its prime.

 

Miller is a great player now, but this team isn't good enough with him on it now. We need to worry about 2-7 years from now.

 

A franchise altering move is needed, here's hoping management picks the right return pieces.

I know we have agreed on this for a while.

 

What I can add is that I just have more faith that this will happen under the current regime.

it is easier to trade a guy you didn’t sign or draft, just less personal baggage around it… so Rutherford has a clean slate in that regard.  He won’t be scared to move on from anyone if he sees it fitting his vision.

 

He has shown himself to be geared towards action rather than being passive.  He is going to want to make a move, so if one presents itself he will pull the trigger.

 

He has already put out a vision so having one makes it easier to execute on it.  Benning often seemed to make random moves that were at odds with each other and what he said before.

 

He and Boudreau just reek of competence.  Guys who have been there and can talk openly about what they see.  Benning and Green were really surly and defensive with the public and media for a long time… we could have lost 10 games in a row and they wouldn’t admit anything was amiss, getting snotty that someone dared ask the question.
 

Petterson playing so poorly might make it really difficult to trade Miller in season.  He is our 1C right now.  You can’t replace that and we would need to bring someone back even if it is a placeholder.  Maybe if he trusts Horvat as 1C, Petterson as 2C and then picks up an expiring veteran as 3C from a team needing to shed to cap to make a deadline move.

 

It may just be easier to trade Boeser right now even if it isn’t the ideal move.  We have quite a few top 6 capable wingers so the drop off won’t be that significant if you subtract Boeser with a D coming back.

 

Halak, Pearson, Poolman, Hamonic, etc are also easier moves since you are really just going to get picks or non-NHL ready prospects for them and not trying to bring back a valuable player from a contending roster.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Provost

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

I know we have agreed on this for a while.

 

What I can add is that I just have more faith that this will happen under the current regime.

it is easier to trade a guy you didn’t sign or draft, just less personal baggage around it… so Rutherford has a clean slate in that regard.  He won’t be scared to move on from anyone if he sees it fitting his vision.

 

He has shown himself to be geared towards action rather than being passive.  He is going to want to make a move, so if one presents itself he will pull the trigger.

 

He has already put out a vision so having one makes it easier to execute on it.  Benning often seemed to make random moves that were at odds with each other and what he said before.

 

He and Boudreau just reek of competence.  Guys who have been there and can talk openly about what they see.  Benning and Green were really surly and defensive with the public and media for a long time… we could have lost 10 games in a row and they wouldn’t admit anything was amiss, getting snotty that someone dared ask the question.
 

Petterson playing so poorly might make it really difficult to trade Miller in season.  He is our 1C right now.  You can’t replace that and we would need to bring someone back even if it is a placeholder.  Maybe if he trusts Horvat as 1C, Petterson as 2C and then picks up an expiring veteran as 3C from a team needing to shed to cap to make a deadline move.

 

It may just be easier to trade Boeser right now even if it isn’t the ideal move.  We have quite a few top 6 capable wingers so the drop off won’t be that significant if you subtract Boeser with a D coming back.

 

Halak, Pearson, Poolman, Hamonic, etc are also easier moves since you are really just going to get picks or non-NHL ready prospects for them and not trying to bring back a valuable player from a contending roster.

Better to just rip the band-aid off IMO. Also don't think it would be a huge issue getting a lesser C back. Chytil in a Schneider+ deal for example. But no, we won't be as good of a team after moving Miller. More changes would need to follow.

[JM_]

13 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Better to just rip the band-aid off IMO. Also don't think it would be a huge issue getting a lesser C back. Chytil in a Schneider+ deal for example. But no, we won't be as good of a team after moving Miller. More changes would need to follow.

kind of complicates things tho if Petey ends up being a winger. 

[Provost]

28 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Better to just rip the band-aid off IMO. Also don't think it would be a huge issue getting a lesser C back. Chytil in a Schneider+ deal for example. But no, we won't be as good of a team after moving Miller. More changes would need to follow.

I guess we also just have to hope Petterson gets his mojo back after this offseason and a proper training camp.  If he doesn’t we may be sunk anyways.

 

The complication is of course contract status.  Boeser can extend now.  If he isn’t willing to do so for a reasonable deal, is the team just forced to move on from him by the deadline to maximize the return?

 

If they trade Boeser do they think they can move Miller at the same time?  That is tough for the rest of the players.  If Boeser is moved, do they hold on to Miller and Horvat until the end of the season when they can be extended early… and then make the decision to move them in the offseason if a reasonable deal can’t be found.

 

I still default to trading both Miller and Boeser for a mix of younger NHLers, futures, and cap space before the deadline and holding on to Horvat and trying to extend him in the summer. 

[Provost]

An alternative to the Carlo idea..

 

Miller

Pearson

Poolman

 

for

Dobson

Bellows

Clutterbuck

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

kind of complicates things tho if Petey ends up being a winger. 

Meh, it's a set back I guess, but we still have other moves to make at C anyway. And I think Petey will be fine...and barring a top C option falling in to our lap, be fine at C as well, long term.

 

Doesn't change what needs to be done though IMO. Need to split assets, particularly of older vets with value, to gain top assets for making a strong contention push in a couple years.

 

38 minutes ago, Provost said:

I guess we also just have to hope Petterson gets his mojo back after this offseason and a proper training camp.  If he doesn’t we may be sunk anyways.

 

The complication is of course contract status.  Boeser can extend now.  If he isn’t willing to do so for a reasonable deal, is the team just forced to move on from him by the deadline to maximize the return?

 

If they trade Boeser do they think they can move Miller at the same time?  That is tough for the rest of the players.  If Boeser is moved, do they hold on to Miller and Horvat until the end of the season when they can be extended early… and then make the decision to move them in the offseason if a reasonable deal can’t be found.

 

I still default to trading both Miller and Boeser for a mix of younger NHLers, futures, and cap space before the deadline and holding on to Horvat and trying to extend him in the summer. 

I'd wager Boeser re-ups personally. But if we decide to move him (for whichever reason - fit or contract), again, it's not a reason to not move Miller IMO. We'll have other pieces coming back one way or the other, if for no other reason than cap. So I'm not worried about bodies, they'll figure that out.

 

If the players didn't want players traded, they should have played better....? Harsh but...

[Alflives]

22 minutes ago, Provost said:

An alternative to the Carlo idea..

 

Miller

Pearson

Poolman

 

for

Dobson

Bellows

Clutterbuck

 Miller, Pearson, Poolman for Barzel, Dobson, Clutterbuck.