Trade High, and control the narrative (Discussion)

[Gollumpus]

3 hours ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

Not a proposal per say, but I really want to push the narrative for sure.................

 

I started to print that we have never to my knowledge, sold high of one of star players, nor have we ever intentionally tried to control our own destiny...............

 

What I mean by this is we have never knowingly tried to "Tank" that I am aware of?

 

Now, since I started thinking about both of these premises, I realized that yes, we had in fact, sold high, with great success.................

 

Cory Schneider for New Jersey's 9th over all..............well how did that work out for us? I ask, tongue and cheek. Yes, it was a incredible success!

 

Horvat has been a top end staple ever since!

 

Now, the second part of this is what happens if we were to sell high on a player of Millers stature, within the Canuck frame work...................

 

Well, IMHO, we sag, but obviously not to the bottom, but maybe far enough to pick another difference maker................

 

Now, as most team's competing for the Stanley Cup will not trade top player for top player, it becomes very obvious that a trade of this stature is a futures trade for the Canucks.

 

Schneider , and 2022 1st, plus,    or     Barron, and a 2023 1st, plus ..............both fit the bill, to a large degree...............and what is the plus?

 

Is there other RHD prospects out there that fill the requirement? And if so, who are they?

 

Anyways, the other fringe benefit is that we either fall somewhat, short term, or plateau for the remainder of the year, but in any case, we benefit from the trade in several ways.

 

It is not simply "Tank" for a better prospect, but rather a multiple pronged move that benefits us, long term, and is more inline with our young core.

 

The question, is, like so many proposals, is, do we trade Miller for the "RIGHT" assets? Can you accept this as a good management decision?

 

Please vote, and comment........

 

Thanks!

 

 

I'm not particularly invested in the Canucks trading Miller. This being said, if the Canucks were to trade him at this TDL:

 

1.) Why trade Miller for what could be a 32nd OA? If a first is involved in the return, then there would have to be a condition (or two).  The Canucks get a choice of the other team's 1st, this year or next. Further, should the Canucks exercise their option to take the other team's 2023 1st, and the other team get a second 1st (for 2023), the Canucks could take the higher of those two picks.

 

2.) Other options related to picks - if the other team trades Miller (next year), the Canucks get a 2nd.

 

3.) Why do people want picks or prospects who are a year of more away from playing in the NHL (assuming they make it to the NHL)? I'd want the Canucks to deal with a team who has young, active roster NHL players. TB is one possibility (they have enough "depth" to be able to shift some pieces, The Rangers could work, but they are still kind of young as far as the age of target players.

 

4.) No cap retention.

 

5.) Have a contract coming back with similar cap/term? Sure, as long as it's attached to a decent player.

 

There's probably other things that could be included.

 

                                                   regards,  G.

[J.I.A.H.N]

24 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

I'm not particularly invested in the Canucks trading Miller. This being said, if the Canucks were to trade him at this TDL:

 

1.) Why trade Miller for what could be a 32nd OA? If a first is involved in the return, then there would have to be a condition (or two).  The Canucks get a choice of the other team's 1st, this year or next. Further, should the Canucks exercise their option to take the other team's 2023 1st, and the other team get a second 1st (for 2023), the Canucks could take the higher of those two picks.

Not a bad idea! The only risk is that it could be worse next year.....but I like the idea

 

24 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

 

2.) Other options related to picks - if the other team trades Miller (next year), the Canucks get a 2nd.

No, they should pay up front. They pay for the retention, with asset.....he is theirs

 

24 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

 

3.) Why do people want picks or prospects who are a year of more away from playing in the NHL (assuming they make it to the NHL)? I'd want the Canucks to deal with a team who has young, active roster NHL players. TB is one possibility (they have enough "depth" to be able to shift some pieces, The Rangers could work, but they are still kind of young as far as the age of target players.

personally, I like 3rd year prospects or young roster player, but in either case, teams need a continual source of ELC's, or they get forced into moving assets as their team grows

 

24 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

 

4.) No cap retention.

It is about return.......if 1 year of retention improves your return and if that return is worth it, then go for it, if not don't

 

24 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

 

5.) Have a contract coming back with similar cap/term? Sure, as long as it's attached to a decent player.

I would only take it as a cap dump, which improves your return

 

24 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

 

There's probably other things that could be included.

 

                                                   regards,  G.

i think the NHL has tried to stop somethings that used to happen, but one never knows!

 

Good post!

[Gollumpus]

7 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

Not a bad idea! The only risk is that it could be worse next year.....but I like the idea

I don't see the risk being all that high, and I suspect that the other team would also see the risk being minimal. This being said, if it paid off........

 

15 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

No, they should pay up front. They pay for the retention, with asset.....he is theirs

What I am suggesting is that the other team doesn't get to take full advantage of trading Miller at next season's TDL. The Canucks should get a taste. The Canucks get the full value of the trade (as we see it), with a rider. Once again, it's maybe a low risk condition, but if it pays off...

 

19 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

personally, I like 3rd year prospects or young roster player, but in either case, teams need a continual source of ELC's, or they get forced into moving assets as their team grows

Sure, no problems there, but what a lot of posters seem to be suggesting is that the team should trade away some of the movers and shakers for picks/prospects, and that the team will continue to perform at a high pace, not taking into account that some of what is moving the team are the very guys who many are saying should be traded.

 

Further, there seems to be a feeling which some have, almost like a "Logan's Run" kind of vibe, that once a player reaches a certain age he should be moved out, regardless. If Miller is "too old" at 28, do we start to have these kind of discussions in two years time when Horvat hits 28? 

 

28 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

It is about return.......if 1 year of retention improves your return and if that return is worth it, then go for it, if not don't

Sure, but if the other team wants to off load cap dumps on to the Canucks (as well as expect retention) then there would have to be a lot more return coming to the Canucks, which I don't see coming. The return i see involves getting as good a return on the 1st as possible (with conditions to improve that potentially improve this result), and players/prospects which are (as close as possible) revenue neutral with regard to the cap. Some additional term might okay.

 

I could see the other team trading a couple of useful pieces with a combined cap hit somewhere equal to Miller's, but if the Canucks are already looking at (re-)signing some of their own players/prospects and they are already in tight with their cap, then I don't see any need in gifting the other team with cap flexibility.

 

36 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

I would only take it as a cap dump, which improves your return

Back to my previous point, who don't you sign because of all of this extra cap the Canucks would be retaining/taking on? And if it's just for a cap dump contract, then that takes a lot of "win" out of trading Miller.

 

38 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

Good post!

I try, or rather, people say that I'm trying....

 

                                       regards,  G.

[N4ZZY]

7 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

If the Canucks are in a playoff spot, I'm not sure they would trade their best player.  If they go on a bit of a losing streak and miss out, then I'm all for trading Miller for a big return.

What happens if they are neither there nor here? Not close enough to a playoff spot, but not quite far enough that they’re out of the picture completely? 

 

what do you do then? 

[86Viking]

5 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

What happens if they are neither there nor here? Not close enough to a playoff spot, but not quite far enough that they’re out of the picture completely? 

 

what do you do then? 

Hold on to Miller, he isn't a UFA this season so keep him and look at the cost of an extension in July. If its too much or he doesn't come up with a figure then we know he wants to move on and we deal him anytime between the off season and TDL for best haul possible. Canucks should be trying to extend Captain Bo right now in my opinion, he seems like a loyal guy but might want to wait and see what happens...

[Provost]

14 hours ago, fanfor42 said:

Proposal trade JIAHN and Provost for a bag of pucks and a Miller jersey. Lol.

 

 

Well since Rutherford said we wouldn’t be trading high picks… we can’t afford the kind of sweetener that it would take to offload you.

[JM_]

12 hours ago, DontMessMe said:

I think Horvat 50% retained is also pretty good. Imagine an elite 2nd line center for a cup contender costing only ~3M

Bo isn't a guy you look to move, tho. We can replace Millers offence in free agency. 

[BPA]

Really depends on what JR thinks of this group and any external pressure put on by AF to make the playoffs.

 

I absolutely hated seeing Markstrom, Tanev and Toffoli leave as UFA without getting anything in return.  Crappy asset management.  Understand that at the time, the goal was to make the playoffs.  

[Provost]

16 minutes ago, JM_ said:

Bo isn't a guy you look to move, tho. We can replace Millers offence in free agency. 

I think we at least give Bo a chance to re-up after July 1st before making a decision on him.  If he doesn't want to extend you move him in the summer to a team that lost out on a player they wanted in free agency.  It should be a simple message, "We love you and everything you bring, we want to give you a fair max term offer to stay.  We want to win soon, and part of that is making sure we don't lose assets for nothing.  If you don't want to sign now we will take that as your intention of wanting to explore the UFA market and will start taking phone calls on possible trades for the coming season."

None of this waiting until the player has all the leverage or "running out of time"  the leverage and pressure points need to be early enough that the team can actually make decisions rather than just hoping for the best and being left holding the bag.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

I think we at least give Bo a chance to re-up after July 1st before making a decision on him.  If he doesn't want to extend you move him in the summer to a team that lost out on a player they wanted in free agency.  It should be a simple message, "We love you and everything you bring, we want to give you a fair max term offer to stay.  We want to win soon, and part of that is making sure we don't lose assets for nothing.  If you don't want to sign now we will take that as your intention of wanting to explore the UFA market and will start taking phone calls on possible trades for the coming season."

None of this waiting until the player has all the leverage or "running out of time"  the leverage and pressure points need to be early enough that the team can actually make decisions rather than just hoping for the best and being left holding the bag.

agree on this for sure. If we could lock up Bo for something like 7x7 to finish his career here that would be great. But if its not on the table, sure look to see what you can get for him at the draft. 

 

This was a pretty frustrating part of Bennings tenure, the waiting thing. I'm looking forward to Rutherford being proactive. 

[Ballisticsports.]

If they are considering what Miller may want in money an term and consider it too much to build a competitive team, they may consider selling him off at trade deadline and get their best return selling high on him, what if he gets hurt next year or has a lesser year than now? You then risk signing a declining player, or an injured player to a long term contract because you are afraid of losing that asset for nothing

We all want Miller, but we have other needs before wants and if Miller was 23 on our team, playing like this it wouldn't matter he would be staying

[BPA]

Players that needs to be looked at before TDL like Motte.  Start negotiations.  If not in line with JR cap hit and term, best to part ways and recoup assets.

 

Then in the offseason, look at Boeser.  I think something like $6.5M x 6yr is fair.  If not, then trade him.

 

Same thing with Miller and Bo (as they will be UFA).  But this can be negotiated up to TDL next year.

[Nucker 67]

Watching Boeser in last night's game, I found that he was a little behind the play. Boeser is not a fast player, and to really compete, the Canucks need to be a fast team.

 

I'd trade Boeser before the big raise.  

 

 

[aGENT]

18 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

If the Canucks are in a playoff spot, I'm not sure they would trade their best player.  If they go on a bit of a losing streak and miss out, then I'm all for trading Miller for a big return.

IMO, know/be honest with what you are at the TDL. Are we a cup contender, as built, with Miller (or Motte, Halak etc)?

 

IMO, new management has (correctly IMO) assessed our cup window to be the roughly +/- 2-7 years from now. EVERYTHING should be focused on making us as competitive as possible, building towards that window. 

 

2 hours ago, BPA said:

Really depends on what JR thinks of this group and any external pressure put on by AF to make the playoffs.  

Rutherford's quotes of the team "having holes" and "being competitive in 2 years" and "long shot to make the playoffs" etc, I think we're already have some idea of what Rutherford is thinking.

[Mike Vanderhoek]

22 minutes ago, aGENT said:

IMO, know/be honest with what you are at the TDL. Are we a cup contender, as built, with Miller (or Motte, Halak etc)?

 

IMO, new management has (correctly IMO) assessed our cup window to be the roughly +/- 2-7 years from now. EVERYTHING should be focused on making us as competitive as possible, building towards that window. 

 

Rutherford's quotes of the team "having holes" and "being competitive in 2 years" and "long shot to make the playoffs" etc, I think we're already have some idea of what Rutherford is thinking.

Exactly, and as much as I am a fan of Miller and think if he wants to remain in Vancouver, not go looking for best dollar he can bank then you explore that option. Thing is at this point there can only be conjecture and winks and nods between the team and Miller on any thoughts about an extension.

 

What it comes down to for me is honestly if JR feels Miller can be retained at a number better then what we the general hockey public feel he can garner on the open market then they may try and retain him. But with the projected window and piecing together quotes from JR I think, my gut tells me Miller will be moved and will bring the Canucks a bigger return then maybe people here are guessing.

[Coconuts]

19 hours ago, King Heffy said:

I support trading anyone for the right return.

There are players I'd rather not move, but this 

 

Nobody on this team is untouchable, some are just less likely to be traded 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Coconuts