An Interesting Look at What Could Happen to JT Miller's Production into his 30s

[HKSR]

4 minutes ago, Provost said:

... you could actually bother to read the entire link and detailed research provided.
 

I did.  It is still looking at WAR.  That doesn't tell us what actual expected offensive production would be.  It tells us overall impact on the team.  We all know Miller will decline, what I, and a lot of other people want to know is what is a reasonable points production level for a 36 to 38 year old Miller.  That's what my data is about. 

[Elias Pettersson]

 

[Provost]

On 3/11/2022 at 10:15 AM, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Umm Tavares is 31.  That will be the 2nd year of a Miller extension.

 

If a contract starting at 27 and ending at 34 and one starting at 30 and ending at 38 don’t look like different risk profiles to you, I am not sure what to say.
 

Tavares at 31 has already dropped to less than a PPG player, and has dropped from 47 goals to 20-25 goals, and is earning $11 million a year… so even on that angle his contract is already starting to age badly.  It will almost certainly look pretty bad 4 years from now.

 

Then add 4 years at top end cap hit, and that is what you would be looking at for Miller.  Not really any high peak upside years and all downside.

 

EDIT:  Miller will

be 31 before his first season on a new contract is over, not in his 2nd season.

 

Does anyone sign Tavares to the same contract a year ago as they did when he was 27?

Edited March 12, 2022 by Provost

[Elias Pettersson]

23 minutes ago, Provost said:

Umm Tavares is 31.  That will be the 2nd year of a Miller extension.

 

If a contract starting at 27 and ending at 34 and one starting at 30 and ending at 38 don’t look like different risk profiles to you, I am not sure what to say.
 

Tavares at 31 has already dropped to less than a PPG player, and has dropped from 47 goals to 20-25 goals, and is earning $11 million a year… so even on that angle his contract is already starting to age badly.  It will almost certainly look pretty bad 4 years from now.

 

Then add 4 years at top end cap hit, and that is what you would be looking at for Miller.  Not really any high peak upside years and all downside.

Why are you and others so concerned about Miller's production when he is 34?  Who cares?  I want to win a Cup, Miller will help us to do that.  I really don't care what he is doing when he is 34.

 

The objective is to win a Stanley Cup, not collect picks and prospects for the rest of eternity.  The saying "we need to trade the players at their peaks to get younger" only works if you have other players on the team who can take over from the player you traded.  How exactly do you get better by trading your best player?  Nobody on our team can do what Miller can do.  And nobody that we trade for will be able to compensate for what we will lose with Miller.  Why is that so hard to understand?  

 

I don't want Schneider, Kravtsov and a 1st.  I'd rather keep Miller unless it's a major overpayment.  Lots of teams have aging players on large contracts but are still competitive.  There is no guarantee that we will actually get better by trading Miller as some people seem to think.  Just like Miller could age badly, the players, picks we get for him can also turn out to be duds.  I'd rather keep what we have knowing that Miller is a top player in the NHL than risking trading him for scraps.

 

The salary cap will work itself out.  We are not Toronto that are paying 4 guys half the cap.  JR can figure things out.  There is room to fit Miller under the cap whereby we can challenge for a Cup in 2 years.  We are a .700 club with Boudreau.  A few tweaks here and there and we Cup contenders.

[Provost]

3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Why are you and others so concerned about Miller's production when he is 34?  Who cares?  I want to win a Cup, Miller will help us to do that.  I really don't care what he is doing when he is 34.

 

The objective is to win a Stanley Cup, not collect picks and prospects for the rest of eternity.  The saying "we need to trade the players at their peaks to get younger" only works if you have other players on the team who can take over from the player you traded.  How exactly do you get better by trading your best player?  Nobody on our team can do what Miller can do.  And nobody that we trade for will be able to compensate for what we will lose with Miller.  Why is that so hard to understand?  

 

I don't want Schneider, Kravtsov and a 1st.  I'd rather keep Miller unless it's a major overpayment.  Lots of teams have aging players on large contracts but are still competitive.  There is no guarantee that we will actually get better by trading Miller as some people seem to think.  Just like Miller could age badly, the players, picks we get for him can also turn out to be duds.  I'd rather keep what we have knowing that Miller is a top player in the NHL than risking trading him for scraps.

 

The salary cap will work itself out.  We are not Toronto that are paying 4 guys half the cap.  JR can figure things out.  There is room to fit Miller under the cap whereby we can challenge for a Cup in 2 years.  We are a .700 club with Boudreau.  A few tweaks here and there and we Cup contenders.

Ummm… because signing Miller to a big, long term contract that is almost certainly going to become a bad value by the time he is 34 and beyond so that slams shut our window of being able to compete for a Cup right at the time our younger stars are right in their prime?  I don’t want 4 years of a window, I want a decade.

 

That seems pretty obvious I would have thought.  Really hard to win a Cup if you are carrying around a 3rd liner making high end first line money.  Those are called anchor contracts for a reason.

 

At full market rate, how much does he help our Cup chances in that first 4 years compared with a huge return plus the player(s) we could sign for that same cap hit?  The time to leverage him as a player was right now when he is on an efficient contract… 

[Elias Pettersson]

6 minutes ago, Provost said:

Ummm… because signing Miller to a big, long term contract that is almost certainly going to become a bad value by the time he is 34 and beyond so that slams shut our window of being able to compete for a Cup right at the time our younger stars are right in their prime?  I don’t want 4 years of a window, I want a decade.

 

That seems pretty obvious I would have thought.  Really hard to win a Cup if you are carrying around a 3rd liner making high end first line money.  Those are called anchor contracts for a reason.

 

At full market rate, how much does he help our Cup chances in that first 4 years compared with a huge return plus the player(s) we could sign for that same cap hit?  The time to leverage him as a player was right now when he is on an efficient contract… 

Keep dreaming.  When was the last time a team had an entire decade to compete for a Cup?  When was the last time Vancouver even competed for a Cup?  You think by trading Miller for Schneider, Kravtsov and a 1st it is going to open our window to win a Cup by another 6 years? 

 

I'd rather take my chances and try and win a Cup in the next 4 years by keeping one of the best players in the NHL versus trading him for picks and prospects that may not even pan out.  Like I said the salary cap will work itself out.  Dallas just resigned a 37 year old Pavelski to a $6 million extension.  He will be 38 next year.  If Dallas can sign a 38 year old to a $6 million deal why can't we be paying Miller $8-9 million when he's 34?

[Gurn]

30 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Keep dreaming.  When was the last time a team had an entire decade to compete for a Cup?  When was the last time Vancouver even competed for a Cup?  You think by trading Miller for Schneider, Kravtsov and a 1st it is going to open our window to win a Cup by another 6 years? 

 

I'd rather take my chances and try and win a Cup in the next 4 years by keeping one of the best players in the NHL versus trading him for picks and prospects that may not even pan out.  Like I said the salary cap will work itself out.  Dallas just resigned a 37 year old Pavelski to a $6 million extension.  He will be 38 next year.  If Dallas can sign a 38 year old to a $6 million deal why can't we be paying Miller $8-9 million when he's 34?

Then who, currently on this team do you turf, in order to pay Miller?

[Elias Pettersson]

3 minutes ago, gurn said:

Then who, currently on this team do you turf, in order to pay Miller?

We don't currently need to turf anyone.  Last I checked we will still be cap compliant next year even if we don't make any trades.  If we sign Miller to an extension then we can look at trading Myers, Boeser or Garland to free up space.  Roughly $10 million comes off the books when Miller's extension would kick in.  Also, he's already getting paid over $5 million.  So adding another $4 million to his contract is not going to destroy our salary cap.

 

At the end of the day, Miller is a part of our core along with Petey, Hughes and Demko.  Pretty much anyone else can be traded for the right price, even Horvat.  JR can figure out the numbers.  Bringing in cheap ELC contracts is obviously the key long term.  Klimovich, Rathbone, Juulsen, Silovs, McDonough, Karlsson, Woo, Lockwood all need to be given a chance to make the big club to replace Pearson, Dickinson, Myers, Hamonic, and maybe one of Garland or Boeser.

[Bure_Pavel]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Why are you and others so concerned about Miller's production when he is 34?  Who cares?  I want to win a Cup, Miller will help us to do that.  I really don't care what he is doing when he is 34.

 

The objective is to win a Stanley Cup, not collect picks and prospects for the rest of eternity.  The saying "we need to trade the players at their peaks to get younger" only works if you have other players on the team who can take over from the player you traded.  How exactly do you get better by trading your best player?  Nobody on our team can do what Miller can do.  And nobody that we trade for will be able to compensate for what we will lose with Miller.  Why is that so hard to understand?  

 

I don't want Schneider, Kravtsov and a 1st.  I'd rather keep Miller unless it's a major overpayment.  Lots of teams have aging players on large contracts but are still competitive.  There is no guarantee that we will actually get better by trading Miller as some people seem to think.  Just like Miller could age badly, the players, picks we get for him can also turn out to be duds.  I'd rather keep what we have knowing that Miller is a top player in the NHL than risking trading him for scraps.

 

The salary cap will work itself out.  We are not Toronto that are paying 4 guys half the cap.  JR can figure things out.  There is room to fit Miller under the cap whereby we can challenge for a Cup in 2 years.  We are a .700 club with Boudreau.  A few tweaks here and there and we Cup contenders.

This is the Cap Era, top teams have great players on team friendly deals. If we could challenge for the cup next year go for it, but i don't think that is the case. We still need to fix the cap mess Benning left, these days cap is king.  

[tas]

49 minutes ago, gurn said:

Then who, currently on this team do you turf, in order to pay Miller?

nobody important. finding an extra $3-4 mil isn't that challenging.

 

the other thing people are failing to recognize is that the cap is going to shoot up way faster than people are expecting. yes, it's locked in for another couple years, but revenues are going to return to normal in a damn hurry, and with the ridiculous state of the global economy and rapid inflation causing ticket prices, merch prices, concession prices, etc. to go up substantially, the revenue number will be that much higher, which means the cap will be that much higher. the actual dollars the players are being paid won't be worth as much, but that's their problem.

[Gurn]

41 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Last I checked we will still be cap compliant next year even if we don't make any trades. 

Cap friendly has them with $10,860,883  for next year-with 14 players signed.

Brock is taking up to $7.5 mill of that.

Leaves about $3.3 mill to sign 7  players including 2 d men and a back up goalie.

 

[Elias Pettersson]

7 minutes ago, gurn said:

Cap friendly has them with $10,860,883  for next year-with 14 players signed.

Brock is taking up to $7.5 mill of that.

Leaves about $3.3 mill to sign 7  players including 2 d men and a back up goalie.

 

The cap is going up by $1 million next year.  Also, Ferland will be on LTIR so if JR wants he can use LTIR for one more year which means we can go up to $86 million next year.

[Baggins]

7 hours ago, erkayloomeh said:

And this is one of the issues with this team. We should at least have bottom 6 options on our farm and we don't.  How do we solve that? Long term drafting and development (not trading picks)  but takes a while.

 

Undervalue mindset of bottom six players( motte) and overvalued top six. ( garland) 

 

Miller is exactly the type if player you win cups with. Is Garland? 

 

I would trade garland for picks prospects.(see above, this speeds that up)

 

I would resign Motte now 

 

I would replace garland in the offseason with a grittier Motte like player for about 3 mil. 

 

Ppl sign ufas like LE to long deals but won't poney up an extra mil for 3 years fir guys like Motte who is a demon to play against.  

I'm just curious, what specifically leads you to believe Garland being an overvalued top six?

[erkayloomeh]

6 minutes ago, Baggins said:

I'm just curious, what specifically leads you to believe Garland being an overvalued top six?

He's a ?   for me as far as playoffs go. Even though he plays with alot of heart he bounces off of ppl. 

I would rather replace him with a forward who has size and is physical. 

When I look at our trade chips that could accelerate our prospect pool he stands out to me because of his points and his contract.

 

The playoffs is a physical war. I'm just nit sure how effective he'll be.

I'm just not sure how we can build up quality prospects without giving something like that up. 

For example Domi is a ufa. 

Some don't like him but he's a free asset.

 

[Baggins]

1 minute ago, erkayloomeh said:

He's a ?   for me as far as playoffs go. Even though he plays with alot of heart he bounces off of ppl. 

I would rather replace him with a forward who has size and is physical. 

When I look at our trade chips that could accelerate our prospect pool he stands out to me because of his points and his contract.

 

The playoffs is a physical war. I'm just nit sure how effective he'll be.

I'm just not sure how we can build up quality prospects without giving something like that up. 

For example Domi is a ufa. 

Some don't like him but he's a free asset.

 

Well when it comes to physcality Boeser is dead last in hits per 60 minutes among the 16 forwards to play this season. Boeser doesn't really use the 6'1" 208 lbs size adsvantage he has over Garland. I look at this as bang for the buck. Boeser is tied dead last among the forwards in +/- at -7. Garland is +11, the highest of the 16 forwards. Boeser has 18 ES points to Garlands 29. Boeser this season is something of a PP specialist but has the benefit of PP1 with our best offensive players. While Garland has had rare appearances on PP1 and gets considerably less PP time with less talented forwards. Garland has drawn 24 penalties versus 10 taken, second only to Pettersson's differential 25 drawn versus 4 taken. Pearson has the third best differential at 14 drawn versus 11 taken, while Boeser is 8 drawn and 7 taken. 

 

Boeser did pick up the physical play in his one playoff appearance moving up to 13th of 15 fowards in hits per 60 minutes. Ahead of only Pettersson and Ericksson. We have nothing to reference with Garland in the playoffs unfortunately. I will point out that Boeser was 6th among forwards for ES points in the playoffs. Both Pearson and Sutter had more ES points. Motte had more ES goals, while Roussel and Virtanen equalled Boeser's ES goals. Again, other than the PP I'm not sure what qualifies Boeser as a playoff performer. 

 

Which brings us to bang for the buck. Garland is locked up under $5m for four more years. Boeser on the other hand is looking at a $7.5m QO and will definitely get over $6m because of it. If he doesn't like the offer he can simply take the QO on a one year deal. To me, given what Garland brings and Boeser doesn't, Garland is much better bang for the buck. Boeser averages a minute more at ES and almost a minute and a half more PP time per game than Garland..If Boeser is the one moved Garland obviously gets more opportunity. To me, of our top six forwards, Boeser is the most expendable when it come to bang for the buck. He would get a solid return and open more cap space to boot. 

 

In summary, neither is particularly physical. Garland is more responsible defensively, he's faster, and his shifty play draws the opposition into penalties. They have similar points this season despite Boeser getting more ES and PP time. Plus Garland is locked up cheaper with some term. As much as I like Boeser I do believe he is the best high cap contract to move. 

[erkayloomeh]

12 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Well when it comes to physcality Boeser is dead last in hits per 60 minutes among the 16 forwards to play this season. Boeser doesn't really use the 6'1" 208 lbs size adsvantage he has over Garland. I look at this as bang for the buck. Boeser is tied dead last among the forwards in +/- at -7. Garland is +11, the highest of the 16 forwards. Boeser has 18 ES points to Garlands 29. Boeser this season is something of a PP specialist but has the benefit of PP1 with our best offensive players. While Garland has had rare appearances on PP1 and gets considerably less PP time with less talented forwards. Garland has drawn 24 penalties versus 10 taken, second only to Pettersson's differential 25 drawn versus 4 taken. Pearson has the third best differential at 14 drawn versus 11 taken, while Boeser is 8 drawn and 7 taken. 

 

Boeser did pick up the physical play in his one playoff appearance moving up to 13th of 15 fowards in hits per 60 minutes. Ahead of only Pettersson and Ericksson. We have nothing to reference with Garland in the playoffs unfortunately. I will point out that Boeser was 6th among forwards for ES points in the playoffs. Both Pearson and Sutter had more ES points. Motte had more ES goals, while Roussel and Virtanen equalled Boeser's ES goals. Again, other than the PP I'm not sure what qualifies Boeser as a playoff performer. 

 

Which brings us to bang for the buck. Garland is locked up under $5m for four more years. Boeser on the other hand is looking at a $7.5m QO and will definitely get over $6m because of it. If he doesn't like the offer he can simply take the QO on a one year deal. To me, given what Garland brings and Boeser doesn't, Garland is much better bang for the buck. Boeser averages a minute more at ES and almost a minute and a half more PP time per game than Garland..If Boeser is the one moved Garland obviously gets more opportunity. To me, of our top six forwards, Boeser is the most expendable when it come to bang for the buck. He would get a solid return and open more cap space to boot. 

 

In summary, neither is particularly physical. Garland is more responsible defensively, he's faster, and his shifty play draws the opposition into penalties. They have similar points this season despite Boeser getting more ES and PP time. Plus Garland is locked up cheaper with some term. As much as I like Boeser I do believe he is the best high cap contract to move. 

I guess that's the question.  What's boeser worth compared to Garland?  Who can fetch more in a trade?

One thing your missing is the effectiveness of a garland hit. 

When he hits he punishes himself not other's. 

Have a ton if respect for him.  

But given the comparisons in there contracts I suspect garland will bring more back. 

Once the playoffs are behind us I would consider trading both. 

It would be interesting tho to see how garland does in the playoffs.  

[Crabcakes]

17 hours ago, Baggins said:

League standings by Win % since Dec 5....

 

That's impressive.  Even better than the Leafs.....

 

But seriously, what really counts is how they play when the chips are down.  I think as long as they keep winning and have a shot at the playoffs, that important players won't be dealt TDL or no

[cdgraham]

On 3/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, Junkyard Dog said:

The only catch is this is Miller's true breakout year. We've had a short sample size of Miller. Last year he wasn't our best forward and the year prior to that he was on a functional lotto line with a hotshot Petey and with a incredible rookie D in Hughes on the PP.

 

A lot of those guys on that list were putting up pretty good numbers more consistently prior to those ages.

I would need to see more of Miller playing at this level before I would concretely back this.

 

Nevertheless good research. 

Idk looks at his point per game over the past 170 games. 

[Baggins]

50 minutes ago, erkayloomeh said:

I guess that's the question.  What's boeser worth compared to Garland?  Who can fetch more in a trade?

One thing your missing is the effectiveness of a garland hit. 

When he hits he punishes himself not other's. 

Have a ton if respect for him.  

But given the comparisons in there contracts I suspect garland will bring more back. 

Once the playoffs are behind us I would consider trading both. 

It would be interesting tho to see how garland does in the playoffs.  

I don't think it's a question of who fetches the better return. If that's what matters trade Miller. He'll get the best return of all our forwards. But we're not rebuilding. So cost versus benefit shoiuld be the primary consideration. If somebody makes a crazy stupid offer you should likely take it regardless of which player it is. But that would more likely be from incoming offers as opposed to you actively shopping a player. If the goal is to improve the team through increased cap space, the player that provides the least versus their cost should be the one you actively look to move. Boeser or Garland you will get a valuable return. The real question which is better for the team to keep moving forward. If you want to contend bang for the buck is more important in deciding who to keep and who to move to improve the team.

 

Btw, comparing the effectiveness of Garland's hit is irrelevant if Boeser doen't hit. This was kind of my point. Boeser has the size to throw his weight around and simply doesn't. Would he be more effective overall if he did? Boeser's one trip to the playoffs he increased his hitting from about half a hit per game regular season to one hit per game in the playoffs. This is based on his hits per 60 minutes and averaging about 20 minutes per game. He's actuyally below 20 minutes per game. Is one hit per game in the playoffs significant? Regular season Garland throws about 2.5 times more hits than Boeser per 60. Neither are hitting machines but I suspect Garland would also increase his hitting in the playoffs. What's more significant than punishing about throwing hit is causing the puck carrier to rush a play. Assuming Garland doubled his physical play in the playoffs as Boeser did, he'd be rushing the puck carrier by hitting 5 times more often than Boeser did. 

 

Personally I'd be surprised to see anybody moved at the deadline unless it's a forward for a legit top 4 RHD, or the wheels fall completely off on this home stand.

[Junkyard Dog]

3 hours ago, cdgraham said:

Idk looks at his point per game over the past 170 games. 

Each of his last 3 years have been different. Already pointed that out.