[Proposal] Wild - Canucks Miller moved

[mll]

5 minutes ago, komodo0921 said:

I wouldn't go that far.

JR knows that the current surge of success will, eventually come to an end (perhaps it just did with the loss to LA). 

He knows that The Vancouver Canucks are a very flawed team and that changes have to be made in order to achieve the goal of a championship.

At this point, I think anything's still on the table, including any young players he doesn't see as long term fits for this club.

JTM's prime to get us a few high-end pieces for long-term success.

Short-term loss for long-term gains.

As for the proposal, I see it as way too rich for any team to agree on.

If Eichel could fetch that many pieces, JTM definitely isn't going to.

Imo, dealing with Minny offers the opportunity to gain player who bring a lot of untapped potential that could turn into steals and will bring some, much needed, youthful aggression.

Jordan Greenway, Ryan O'Rourke, and their 1st rnd pick 2022.for JTM.

This is a good deal for both sides.

They get a player who's ready to win now and one they can resign when the time comes.

We get a, much needed, drop in payroll, a massive winger who's yet to fully realize his potential, a right-side defensive prospect, who could turn into an effective partner for Hughes, and the, all important, 1st round pick which is always wanted in such dealings. 

Both players we get bring much needed physicality and size and the possibility of much more.

Even if they are simply great depth players who play a support roll, they are still the types of players needed to win championships.

Imo, we still win.

 

 

 

Rutherford's advice to Guerin was don't try and win a trade. Tells him that trades need to be fair otherwise he won't be making many.  

 

Guerin has made it pretty clear that he is not trading futures.  They are in a rebuild mindset where themselves are looking to acquire more draft picks for the players they don't wish or can't retain for lack of cap space.  They'll have 15M in buyout costs for another 2 seasons by the time Miller's contract is up.  Just next season their buyouts increase by 8M to reach 13M.  Guerin didn't try and trade Parise/Suter and instead just bought them out despite the massive impact on their cap.  Their window is expected to really open up in 3 seasons once the bulk of their buyouts is off their books.  

[Canuck Surfer]

22 hours ago, aGENT said:

n which case a potential Miller/Dobson trade might make even more sense this season

I just watched the Oilers / Isles game.

 

Man Dobson looked good!  In their circumstance I see zero chance they sell a top young D.

 

Zero.

 

 

I get that Makar, Hughes make headlines & points.  He could be the leagues actual best young D.  I could dee them trying to get him a partner.

[komodo0921]

9 minutes ago, mll said:

Rutherford's advice to Guerin was don't try and win a trade. Tells him that trades need to be fair otherwise he won't be making many.  

 

Guerin has made it pretty clear that he is not trading futures.  They are in a rebuild mindset where themselves are looking to acquire more draft picks for the players they don't wish or can't retain for lack of cap space.  They'll have 15M in buyout costs for another 2 seasons by the time Miller's contract is up.  Just next season their buyouts increase by 8M to reach 13M.  Guerin didn't try and trade Parise/Suter and instead just bought them out despite the massive impact on their cap.  Their window is expected to really open up in 3 seasons once the bulk of their buyouts is off their books.  

And yet, rumor has it that Minny was poking around about Miller which would seem to go against the rebuild theory.

Minny has turned out to be much better then, even BG anticipated.

Gaining JTM greatly improves their forward core and elevates them into the "true contender" conversation.

In the end, BG knows what he's getting in JTM.

We don't know that any of the proposed returns will ever become more then depth players and amounts to us taking a big chance that we get something out of the deal.

My proposal is stemming from the fact that I believe there is more to both players then they've shown so far and that the value will show itself down the road.

[mll]

Just now, komodo0921 said:

And yet, rumor has it that Minny was poking around about Miller which would seem to go against the rebuild theory.

Minny has turned out to be much better then, even BG anticipated.

Gaining JTM greatly improves their forward core and elevates them into the "true contender" conversation.

In the end, BG knows what he's getting in JTM.

We don't know that any of the proposed returns will ever become more then depth players and amounts to us taking a big chance that we get something out of the deal.

My proposal is stemming from the fact that I believe there is more to both players then they've shown so far and that the value will show itself down the road.

For Fiala.  A hockey trade.  Not giving up futures though.  Miller would bridge the gap to Rossi and at 5.25M would still fit under their cap while Fiala is RFA and likely to get more than that.

[komodo0921]

Just now, mll said:

For Fiala.  A hockey trade.  Not giving up futures though.  Miller would bridge the gap to Rossi and at 5.25M would still fit under their cap while Fiala is RFA and likely to get more than that.

Rumor has it, Fiala's bad attitude is a big part of what's caused him to fall out of favor with Wild brass.

I'm not into any player that brings negativity or selfishness to the dressing room.

[mll]

1 minute ago, komodo0921 said:

Rumor has it, Fiala's bad attitude is a big part of what's caused him to fall out of favor with Wild brass.

I'm not into any player that brings negativity or selfishness to the dressing room.

Back in Nashville but not in Minnesota - himself admitted to never have felt comfortable in Nashville.   Evason had him in Milwaukee and both talked of how he had some growing up to do back then.  Evason actually talks of how he has grown in maturity and is a good teammate.  Russo has never reported any such thing either and he would know. 

[komodo0921]

4 minutes ago, mll said:

For Fiala.  A hockey trade.  Not giving up futures though.  Miller would bridge the gap to Rossi and at 5.25M would still fit under their cap while Fiala is RFA and likely to get more than that.

My bottom line is if I were gm, I'm 100% looking for youthful aggression in any deal.

We woefully lack the character needed to win a championship. 

Miller offers a chance to address that need.

We have Fiala-like players in our line-up already. Adding him, imo, doesn't address needs.

I'd rather keep Miller.

[aGENT]

51 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I just watched the Oilers / Isles game.

 

Man Dobson looked good!  In their circumstance I see zero chance they sell a top young D.

 

Zero.

 

 

I get that Makar, Hughes make headlines & points.  He could be the leagues actual best young D.  I could dee them trying to get him a partner.

Unfortunately, probably true. Just suggesting possible RHD avenues. And let's not act like adding a top 20 F in exchange for him is nothing. As I noted, they could still have a VERY solid D core while also adding Miller. A lot would depend on how 'all in' they are RIGHT NOW.

 

Another option might be packaging Rathbone back the other way as well to minimize some of the 'top young D' sting. That would obviously require more moving pieces though.

 

Is it likely? No. Are there potentially avenues that at least 'theoretically' could work for both teams? IMO, yes.

Edited January 1, 2022 by aGENT

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

We're not trading JT Miller...

Would you prefer to trade him next season, or let him walk in 1.5 years as a UFA?

[Elias Pettersson]

48 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Would you prefer to trade him next season, or let him walk in 1.5 years as a UFA?

As I noted in a previous thread we should have the ability to re-sign all of Boeser, Miller and Horvat. So not sure why you didn’t include that as an option. 
 

Miller is the equivalent of Gabriel Landeskog. Both are leaders on their team, can play in all situations, are point per game power forwards and are both quite durable. Colorado signed a 29 year old Landeskog to a 7x8 deal as a UFA. So there is no reason we can’t sign a 30 year old Miller to an 8-8.5x7 deal in the same way. 
 

Obviously everything is dependent on where we are at this time next year. If we aren’t even a playoff team then I would trade him at next year’s deadline. If we are solidly in the playoff hunt and we are able to acquire a few missing pieces along the way I would definitely want JR to look at re-signing both Horvat and Miller. 

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, komodo0921 said:

My bottom line is if I were gm, I'm 100% looking for youthful aggression in any deal.

We woefully lack the character needed to win a championship. 

Miller offers a chance to address that need.

We have Fiala-like players in our line-up already. Adding him, imo, doesn't address needs.

I'd rather keep Miller.

Guerin would drive Fiala to the airport himself if we offered him Miller straight up. That would be a brutal trade for Vancouver. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

As I noted in a previous thread we should have the ability to re-sign all of Boeser, Miller and Horvat. So not sure why you didn’t include that as an option. 
 

Miller is the equivalent of Gabriel Landeskog. Both are leaders on their team, can play in all situations, are point per game power forwards and are both quite durable. Colorado signed a 29 year old Landeskog to a 7x8 deal as a UFA. So there is no reason we can’t sign a 30 year old Miller to an 8-8.5x7 deal in the same way. 
 

Obviously everything is dependent on where we are at this time next year. If we aren’t even a playoff team then I would trade him at next year’s deadline. If we are solidly in the playoff hunt and we are able to acquire a few missing pieces along the way I would definitely want JR to look at re-signing both Horvat and Miller. 

I do not think re-signing them all is a bad idea. Why if for no reason, would you get rid of good players? But that is not the problem, the problem is balance, and the need for a suitable upgrade at RHD. JR has identified that there are holes and that changes will have to be made to address this problem.

 

I am not saying one or the other (Miller or Boeser), as it could be someone else (Pettersson or Horvat), but if JR is going to change the make up, it will be probably most one of these 4. I do not take great joy in this, but it will not be one of our young guys, I do not think?

 

And just for the record, I totally get you point and agree with you. I just don't know what the answer is, and I don't know what JR means or will do? But what does stick right out at me, is that GM's all sees things differently, so IMO, I don't think you can rule out anything.

 

One of the things that does jump out on me, is Miller contract is so cap friendly, and would also be even better if at 50% retained, as it would be easy to assimilate the much smaller cap.

 

With Boeser, it would have to be a sign and trade, because of his qualifying offer and unknown cost.

 

It is not exactly a mess, but JR has choices, including keeping status quo.

[aGENT]

8 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

As I noted in a previous thread we should have the ability to re-sign all of Boeser, Miller and Horvat. So not sure why you didn’t include that as an option.

 

It is potentially an option. I never claimed it to be an exhaustive list. But if Miller has no intention to extend at anything resembling a deal that makes sense for the Canucks, and it does come down to trade or walk, what are you picking?

[Junkyard Dog]

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

It is potentially an option. I never claimed it to be an exhaustive list. But if Miller has no intention to extend at anything resembling a deal that makes sense for the Canucks, and it does come down to trade or walk, what are you picking?

There's also the fact we won't be able to address other needs due to the lack of cap space if we retain everybody. It will take time to build back up a prospect pool too if we don't add any good picks/prospects. It is pretty bare given the picks/prospects traded and graduates. 

 

A good prospect pool gives us a ton of flexibility when it comes to the roster. It gives us the opportunity to inject young players on cheap deals pretty much on a yearly basis and it can be utilized as a trade chip when a really good player that can help you is put on the market.

 

Our D-core isn't getting much younger. As much as I have enjoyed Myers, he is also turning 32 next month. He isn't a long-term solution and we already need another solid top 4 RD on top of him.

 

Overall IMO, Benning made these moves (OEL/Miller/Garland/etc) a couple years too early. At least in terms of trying to build a long-term contender. 

[Elias Pettersson]

10 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

It is potentially an option. I never claimed it to be an exhaustive list. But if Miller has no intention to extend at anything resembling a deal that makes sense for the Canucks, and it does come down to trade or walk, what are you picking?

The decision is not that easy. As with Landeskog he may not sign a new deal until he’s a UFA.  JR isn’t gonna trade him if we are a legit playoff team. He’s going to add pieces around him. 
 

Miller looks pretty happy right now. There doesn’t seem to be a reason why he would want a trade at this moment. And there also doesn’t seem to be a reason why JR would need to trade him right now. 

[aGENT]

11 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

There's also the fact we won't be able to address other needs due to the lack of cap space if we retain everybody. It will take time to build back up a prospect pool too if we don't add any good picks/prospects. It is pretty bare given the picks/prospects traded and graduates. 

Meh, it's not really THAT bare considering most of our top prospects have already graduated. Our pool is chock a block full of the exact type of depth/support/role players we'll need to cycle in as the core moves in to it's prime. That's not too say that all of them will make it (they won't) but if we have 1 or 2 every year able to contribute and perhaps the odd suprise (Klimovich?) that ends up playing well above their draft position, that's all we really need beyond the obvious and elusive, top 4 RHD.

 

And no, if we try to retain ALL of our F's, we won't be able to address that RHD (which I agree needs addressing).

 

But it's not like we stop drafting from here out. We're likely getting a decent, mid-first guy this draft as well. Nevermind having expiring players the next couple years that we can move off for futures.

 

11 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Our D-core isn't getting much younger. As much as I have enjoyed Myers, he is also turning 32 next month. He isn't a long-term solution and we already need another solid top 4 RD on top of him.

Agreed, I think a lot of people miss that. Hamonic is gone next year. Myers the season after and neither are getting any younger (either is OEL on the left). Sure, hopefully a couple of Poolman/Woo/Juulsen can play mid/bottom/spare pair roles in a couple years but who's playing top pair on that right side? Who's hopefully pushing one of those guys down and off 2nd pair? We've got a couple long shot lotto tickets in the pool but that's about it. It's BY FAR our most pressing organizational need in the near term.

 

11 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

 

Overall IMO, Benning made these moves (OEL/Miller/Garland/etc) a couple years too early. At least in terms of trying to build a long-term contender. 

Meh, I'm very much of the philosophy of ALWAYS improve. ALWAYS add quality to your organization. Sometimes that means selling vets for futures, sometimes that means getting good deals on guys like Miller, OEL and Garland. I make both those deals again 11 times out of 10. We can trade Miller now for far more than what we paid in trade to acquire him. Same with OEL and especially Garland. And Garland in particular is young enough and cheap enough to contribute to this team in its contention window in the next 2-4 years he's under said bargain deal.

 

All while supporting the young core, getting then some playoff experience (bubble), etc etc. 

 

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The decision is not that easy. As with Landeskog he may not sign a new deal until he’s a UFA.  JR isn’t gonna trade him if we are a legit playoff team. He’s going to add pieces around him. 
 

Miller looks pretty happy right now. There doesn’t seem to be a reason why he would want a trade at this moment. And there also doesn’t seem to be a reason why JR would need to trade him right now. 

In haven't seen anyone suggest we need to trade him RIGHT NOW. Quite the opposite actually.

[Junkyard Dog]

6 hours ago, aGENT said:

Meh, it's not really THAT bare considering most of our top prospects have already graduated. Our pool is chock a block full of the exact type of depth/support/role players we'll need to cycle in as the core moves in to it's prime. That's not too say that all of them will make it (they won't) but if we have 1 or 2 every year able to contribute and perhaps the odd suprise (Klimovich?) that ends up playing well above their draft position, that's all we really need beyond the obvious and elusive, top 4 RHD.

 

And no, if we try to retain ALL of our F's, we won't be able to address that RHD (which I agree needs addressing).

 

But it's not like we stop drafting from here out. We're likely getting a decent, mid-first guy this draft as well. Nevermind having expiring players the next couple years that we can move off for futures.

 

Agreed, I think a lot of people miss that. Hamonic is gone next year. Myers the season after and neither are getting any younger (either is OEL on the left). Sure, hopefully a couple of Poolman/Woo/Juulsen can play mid/bottom/spare pair roles in a couple years but who's playing top pair on that right side? Who's hopefully pushing one of those guys down and off 2nd pair? We've got a couple long shot lotto tickets in the pool but that's about it. It's BY FAR our most pressing organizational need in the near term.

 

Meh, I'm very much of the philosophy of ALWAYS improve. ALWAYS add quality to your organization. Sometimes that means selling vets for futures, sometimes that means getting good deals on guys like Miller, OEL and Garland. I make both those deals again 11 times out of 10. We can trade Miller now for far more than what we paid in trade to acquire him. Same with OEL and especially Garland. And Garland in particular is young enough and cheap enough to contribute to this team in its contention window in the next 2-4 years he's under said bargain deal.

 

All while supporting the young core, getting then some playoff experience (bubble), etc etc. 

With most of those graduates being forwards. That is why I think we could move a guy like Miller. Our top 9 is our position of strength. Even most of our current better prospects are forwards in Karlsson, Klimovich, Lockwood.

 

My point in regards with the bare pool was that a good prospect pool gives you roster flexibility with being able to bring in youth more gradually and as a trade chips when a player that can help us gets put on the market when we're ready to make that sort of move. Yeah we have some notables for those support roles like Woo, Lockwood, Klimovich, Karlsson, Rathbone but I would only really say Klimovich may be our only real blue-chipper.

 

I am in the belief that if you're not a top team looking toward the stanley cup, you should always try to maintain having a good pool of prospects. The recent trading of picks and graduates the last few years are the reason it has become bare atm. Fault of circumstance more than anything.

 

Yeah we won't stop drafting but if we leave things as is it will take longer to build up a good prospect pool. Trading expiring assets, as we agree, can help build our prospect pool quicker and help us acquire younger pieces that can be a part of the core.

 

Our D-core short and long term are the biggest need. Due to mostly drafting higher-end forwards and forwards panning out that part of our prospect pool has been bare. Rathbone/Woo are interesting guys but they're a far cry from being top-end D prospects. Having another 2-3 prospect defenseman ahead of them would make for a great D prospect pool and a brighter future with our D-corp.

 

I am also in the belief that timing is everything(almost everything). I don't think OEL/Miller/Garland/etc are bad moves but if they were made after another 1-2 years of solid drafting(retaining your picks or maybe even trying to acquire more) we might be better off right now. I like Garland though and think he's a core member long-term. However, at the same time timing applies with people put on the market too(ie Schmidt/Miller) in order to get good deals so you're not wrong there. I reckon it makes for some tough decision making for GMs since hindsight isn't a luxury you can have when deciding these things.

[Coconuts]

10 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The decision is not that easy. As with Landeskog he may not sign a new deal until he’s a UFA.  JR isn’t gonna trade him if we are a legit playoff team. He’s going to add pieces around him. 
 

Miller looks pretty happy right now. There doesn’t seem to be a reason why he would want a trade at this moment. And there also doesn’t seem to be a reason why JR would need to trade him right now. 

No, no he probably won't. Especially not via trade, if we're making trades we're almost definitely getting younger. If Miller stays it'll be Rutherford letting the string play out on the season and going from there, we're unlikely to be anything resembling buyers. Nor will we have a significant amount of cap coming off any time soon that'll allow us to make noise via UFA. Luongo coming off the books will mostly be eaten up by the Holtby/Virtanen buyouts next season.

 

Rutherford's made plenty of trades, and being ruthless is part of being in management. I wouldn't be shocked to see Miller go even if we are in the mix, especially if Rutherford sees our window being further off than the next few years. 

 

This is a couple days old, and he's emphasized the importance of getting younger since arriving. I've no reason to believe he's going to sacrifice a longer window for the short term. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Coconuts