[PGT] Seattle Kraken at Vancouver Canucks | Apr. 26, 2022

[lmm]

8 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Steven Stamkos - 101 points age 32

Steven Stamkos - 72 points age 25

 

Patrick Kane - 92 points age 33

Patrick Kane - 66 points age 24

 

Alex Ovechkin - 90 points age 36

Alex Ovechkin - 65 points age 26

 

Imagine having a career year at age 32. 
Imagine scoring more points at age 33 then at age 24. 
Imagine scoring more points at age 36 then at age 26. 
 

JT Miller - 97 points age 29

JT Miller - 58 points age 24
 

Imagine scoring 97 points at age 29 and the fans want to trade you for scraps because you are too old and will be in a major decline in 3 years. 

 

 

how about Getzlaf?

29 yo second highest point total of his career at 87

followed by 70

66

73

61

48

42

17

37

or Perry

82 at 29 yo

but then never more than 55

or Guy Lafleur

125 at 29 yo

followed by 4 70+ seasons (one was actually in the 80s)

and only one complete season

or Smyl

20 goals at 29 yo

followed by 

12

7

1

2

[wai_lai416]

7 hours ago, mordekai said:

He just gave you examples 

he never said they were better players 

go check out Marchand stats post age 30

marchand is fine but we are talking about players setting career highs at 32+ i think miller could and would set career highs at 30 it's the subsequent years that we won't see him reach it again and possibly start declining.. big or small i guess remains to be seen but if you are paying him like a 90-100 points player you'd expect him to perform at or close to that level for 60-70% of the contract at least? not for 1 or 2 years and then declining. we are paying for one of if not the best player on the team for 6-8 years most likely.. you'd want to be seeing him make the big money while the team is competing for a cup (which we really ard not ready to compete in the next 1-2 maybe even 3 years.. playoffs maybe cup? more than likely not unless there's a miracle and every other team is injured) not make the big money when the team is ready to contend for the cup but he's no longer a top player. which this contract will more or less ends up to be. if he wants to sign for 7.5? sure great not likely to happen. if he wants to sign for 5 or less years great again not likely to happen. if he's looking for 8.5+ 7-8 years? easy pass. recoup the asset and look for a trade/free agency or even look at miller again if he hits free agency if we are really that desperate but at least we have the added asset. 

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, lmm said:

how about Getzlaf?

29 yo second highest point total of his career at 87

followed by 70

66

73

61

48

42

17

37

or Perry

82 at 29 yo

but then never more than 55

or Guy Lafleur

125 at 29 yo

followed by 4 70+ seasons (one was actually in the 80s)

and only one complete season

or Smyl

20 goals at 29 yo

followed by 

12

7

1

2

So I guess you have no clue either what’s going to happen with Miller’s production. 
 

Playing tit for tat and going through the last 50 years of hockey to show players who peaked at 29 and then fell off a cliff isn’t going to help your argument that Miller is going to do the same thing. 
 

The anti signing Miller people are the ones who are saying as a matter of fact that Miller’s production will fall off a cliff in 3-4 years. Not even trying to make a case or an argument otherwise. I bring up the fact that several players are having career years in their 30’s and you jump in with Guy LaFleur and Stan Smyl stats from 30-40 years ago. 
 

Miller isn’t a chain smoker. Today’s NHL players are in much better shape than players from the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s.  That’s why you are seeing older players nowadays play for longer periods of time and still being productive. 

[24K PureCool]

Vegas officially out. 

 

And lost to the hawks. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by 24K PureCool

[Elias Pettersson]

4 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

The point is really you picked a handful of examples where the reality is that for those few you show, there are hundreds on the decline at that age or already out of the league. There are a few that didn’t get it figured out until they hit 30 but that isn’t the bet I want to lay down either. 
It is possible that Miller could give us another 2-3 years of really high level play. He doesn’t have a game like Pavelski’s though, he could never skate so loosing a step isn’t a big deal. Miller plays a high risk game and when he looses a step, the offence will likely fade quickly. 
I am not trying to dig at Miller, I just don’t think a big long term contract is a great idea especially where I think this franchise is. I have said I would be happy to see him sign anywhere up to about 9M but not for more than 3-4 years at that rate.  A full 8 year big deal would be crazy unless the last 3 years are significantly lower to bring cap hit down. 

Those hundreds of players out of the league did not get 100 points in a single year. They were not top 10 in scoring. 
 

You are trying to compare an average NHL player’s career with a guy who is a borderline superstar right now. 
 

Those examples I gave are for elite top end superstar players. Miller is a top 10 player in the NHL right now. Those players don’t just fall off a cliff production wise at 30 years old. 

[ilduce39]

On Miller: Naslund aged pretty well.. led an offensively challenged NY team with 24 goals (albeit only 46 points) at 35 years old. 55 and 60 points before that and PPG in his early 30s.
 

Honestly, there’s no way of knowing so random player pulls is futile.. good players sometimes fall off a cliff, sometimes maintain a high level of play into their mid 30s.  
 

I think it’s more likely to see a Naslund-like decline, but I also think it’s unlikely to expect a Loui Player Name type situation that I know people are thinking about. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by ilduce39

[lmm]

38 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

So I guess you have no clue either what’s going to happen with Miller’s production. 
 

Playing tit for tat and going through the last 50 years of hockey to show players who peaked at 29 and then fell off a cliff isn’t going to help your argument that Miller is going to do the same thing. 
 

The anti signing Miller people are the ones who are saying as a matter of fact that Miller’s production will fall off a cliff in 3-4 years. Not even trying to make a case or an argument otherwise. I bring up the fact that several players are having career years in their 30’s and you jump in with Guy LaFleur and Stan Smyl stats from 30-40 years ago. 
 

Miller isn’t a chain smoker. Today’s NHL players are in much better shape than players from the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s.  That’s why you are seeing older players nowadays play for longer periods of time and still being productive. 

all I was trying  to do was to show you the value of cherry picking

you  seem to understand when I do it

but 

not when you do it

[Elias Pettersson]

2 minutes ago, lmm said:

all I was trying  to do was to show you the value of cherry picking

you  seem to understand when I do it

but 

not when you do it

No, I get where you are coming from.  I actually did bring up some trade proposals for Miller.  So I'm not against trading him for the right price.  But we aren't getting that price on a one year rental anymore, so I prefer to keep him. 

 

Hey, I get that ALOT of players fall off a cliff at age 30.  The players I brought up as examples are superstar like players who are having career years well into their 30's.  It seems that is happening more frequently now than 20-30-40 years ago.  I believe the reason why is that today's NHL player is in much better shape than they have ever been in, and that helps top players stay at the top of their game for longer periods of time.

 

There is no guarantee that Miller will still be productive at age 33 or 34.  I do understand this.  However, I believe based on his performance as a Canuck that he still has alot to give.  I also believe that we are closer than alot of people think, so it makes sense to keep your leading scorer and have him as part of your core for the next 5-6 years.

 

I don't see any trade proposals that are out there that make sense for us.  And based on future cap projections it looks like we should be fine with paying Miller $8-9 million a year for 6-7 years.  I see the cap going up to 90 million+ plus by the time Miller is into his mid 30's, so I don't see his cap hit being a problem in the future as long as we move some of the deadweight out.

[wai_lai416]

53 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Those hundreds of players out of the league did not get 100 points in a single year. They were not top 10 in scoring. 
 

You are trying to compare an average NHL player’s career with a guy who is a borderline superstar right now. 
 

Those examples I gave are for elite top end superstar players. Miller is a top 10 player in the NHL right now. Those players don’t just fall off a cliff production wise at 30 years old. 

exactly you said it yourself you gave examples of "elite top end superstar". Miller is borderline superstar. and definitely not the elite top end of the superstar category. there are far more example of borderline superstar that don't age well vs the elite top end superstars that age well. 

[wai_lai416]

1 hour ago, Muttley said:

Miller is aging quite nicely, dontyathink. 100 pts. next year with Boudreau for the whole year. (some rumors today are Bruce will be back multi year.)

Nothing more then a plan coming together. 

 

 

how do you know miller is aging nicely? he's suppose to be hitting his prime now which he is.. but remains to be seen whether he hit the plateau or still have couple years to go. we won't know if miller aged nicely or not till he's 32 33.. he may very well age nicely or he may not age nicely at all.. if the canucks didn't already have another bad contract in OEL sure they can probably take the risk on miller even if he declines.. but we already have 1 anchor contract.. we simply don't have the capability to take on 2 big contract and have them not perform to their cap hit.. OEL right now probably would cost you a 1st + 50% retained to even move which is not worth it. if u can magically rid OEL and not retain anything and rebuild your defense? by all means sign miller.. we can eat one of those contracts.. but the risk of 2 of them and want to still remain competitive in this ultra tight league? prolly ain't happening

[Elias Pettersson]

13 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

how do you know miller is aging nicely? he's suppose to be hitting his prime now which he is.. but remains to be seen whether he hit the plateau or still have couple years to go. we won't know if miller aged nicely or not till he's 32 33.. he may very well age nicely or he may not age nicely at all.. if the canucks didn't already have another bad contract in OEL sure they can probably take the risk on miller even if he declines.. but we already have 1 anchor contract.. we simply don't have the capability to take on 2 big contract and have them not perform to their cap hit.. OEL right now probably would cost you a 1st + 50% retained to even move which is not worth it. if u can magically rid OEL and not retain anything and rebuild your defense? by all means sign miller.. we can eat one of those contracts.. but the risk of 2 of them and want to still remain competitive in this ultra tight league? prolly ain't happening

So OEL isn't even worth $3.6 million?  You have to add a 1st to move him out at $3.6 million?  You do realize a top 4 Dman who can run a power play and play 19-20 minutes a night is worth alot more than $3.6 million right?

 

As for 2 anchor contracts, OEL is done in 5 years, Miller won't be signing a new contract until a year from now, so their contracts will run together for only 4 years.  Most people are fine with signing Miller to a 4 year extension, even you, so why would it bother you for Miller to have an extra 2-3 years when OEL is off the books?

[Quint]

I say if you can't sign him to a reasonable contract and no home run offers, keep him and see if you can go on a run in the playoffs. Then let him walk. He could be the rental at our deadline that lets us make a run. No cost other than opportunity lost, and if you happen to win the cup, well...

[wai_lai416]

8 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

So OEL isn't even worth $3.6 million?  You have to add a 1st to move him out at $3.6 million?  You do realize a top 4 Dman who can run a power play and play 19-20 minutes a night is worth alot more than $3.6 million right?

 

As for 2 anchor contracts, OEL is done in 5 years, Miller won't be signing a new contract until a year from now, so their contracts will run together for only 4 years.  Most people are fine with signing Miller to a 4 year extension, even you, so why would it bother you for Miller to have an extra 2-3 years when OEL is off the books?

 

sure OEL is worth 3.6mil but he has a full NMC so let say he's only willing to go to so and so team only.. u think those teams are going to say oh ya sure we'll take him at 50% knowing we are desperate to rid him.. they'll probably be asking for sweeteners just to take him coz we have 0 leverage. say OEL only wants to go to boston if we were to move him.. would boston be slightly interested in him at 3.6mil? possibly? but do they need him? not really.. so you would have to add on top just to entice them.. and no i wouldn't move OEL if we have to retain anything at all.. like you said.. where else u going to find a 3.6mil top 4 defenseman that can eat mins? coz that's all you'll have to spend as you'll still have the other 3.6mil stuck for eternity. OEL should only be moved if it's 0 retention.. or not moved at all.

 

and the objective is to be not anchored down with bad contracts? so what exactly is the point of having miller for the next 3 years when the team is not a cup contender? and then have a miller no longer a 90-100 point player on a massive contract when the team is actually competiting? so let say miller is a 60-70 point guy 3-4 years from now.. we can't find someone better at say whatever he sign for let say 8.5mil? or someone cheaper than 8.5 that can put up 60-70 points? Boudreau have the team playing great and competitively.. but that doesn't make them automatically a cup contender.. there are so much flaws and holes on this team we aint going to magically become a cup contender overnight.. like seriously we want to sign miler to a massive contract during his prime years when we are not contending but are ok paying him the massive contract when he's no longer a prime player when we should be competing.. all teams have bad contracts.. but no cup contending team continously have a 7.5+ mil player anchoring them down year after year and we want to run the risk of having not 1 but 2.

[Elias Pettersson]

4 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

 

sure OEL is worth 3.6mil but he has a full NMC so let say he's only willing to go to so and so team only.. u think those teams are going to say oh ya sure we'll take him at 50% knowing we are desperate to rid him.. they'll probably be asking for sweeteners just to take him coz we have 0 leverage. say OEL only wants to go to boston if we were to move him.. would boston be slightly interested in him at 3.6mil? possibly? but do they need him? not really.. so you would have to add on top just to entice them.. and no i wouldn't move OEL if we have to retain anything at all.. like you said.. where else u going to find a 3.6mil top 4 defenseman that can eat mins? coz that's all you'll have to spend as you'll still have the other 3.6mil stuck for eternity. OEL should only be moved if it's 0 retention.. or not moved at all.

 

and the objective is to be not anchored down with bad contracts? so what exactly is the point of having miller for the next 3 years when the team is not a cup contender? and then have a miller no longer a 90-100 point player on a massive contract when the team is actually competiting? so let say miller is a 60-70 point guy 3-4 years from now.. we can't find someone better at say whatever he sign for let say 8.5mil? or someone cheaper than 8.5 that can put up 60-70 points? Boudreau have the team playing great and competitively.. but that doesn't make them automatically a cup contender.. there are so much flaws and holes on this team we aint going to magically become a cup contender overnight.. like seriously we want to sign miler to a massive contract during his prime years when we are not contending but are ok paying him the massive contract when he's no longer a prime player when we should be competing.. all teams have bad contracts.. but no cup contending team continously have a 7.5+ mil player anchoring them down year after year and we want to run the risk of having not 1 but 2.

Hey, we agree on something, that's a start...  

[Smashian Kassian]

Teams would be stupid to not take OEL at 3.6M. OEL as a UFA would probably get 6 on a multi-year deal.

 

I don't know why this is even a conversation, OEL has been the best addition to our team. Overpaid by a million or so sure, but he's not the problem. Myers/Dickinson/Poolman are far more inefficient, atleast OEL can play 23+ mins a night & run a PP.  

[Viper007]

53 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

how do you know miller is aging nicely? he's suppose to be hitting his prime now which he is.. but remains to be seen whether he hit the plateau or still have couple years to go. we won't know if miller aged nicely or not till he's 32 33.. he may very well age nicely or he may not age nicely at all.. if the canucks didn't already have another bad contract in OEL sure they can probably take the risk on miller even if he declines.. but we already have 1 anchor contract.. we simply don't have the capability to take on 2 big contract and have them not perform to their cap hit.. OEL right now probably would cost you a 1st + 50% retained to even move which is not worth it. if u can magically rid OEL and not retain anything and rebuild your defense? by all means sign miller.. we can eat one of those contracts.. but the risk of 2 of them and want to still remain competitive in this ultra tight league? prolly ain't happening

We shouldn't jump to conclusions on saying it's an anchor contract until it actually becomes an anchor.  Until it happens, let's just see how it plays out.  1st season, so far so good, played a little better than I thought he would, so definitely not an anchor contract so far.

[wai_lai416]

5 minutes ago, Muttley said:

What Larsson or anyone else is or isn't trending to be should have absolutely 0 to do with resigning or extending Miller. Everything has a risk factor.  Re signing Horvat has a risk factor.  There is no such thing as a no-risk scenario signing any player. You have to go by what you see on the ice, what is said behind closed doors and even what the view of team-mates is when contemplating a major commitment. In my view, if there's a way to get Miller signed through 25/26 or even 24/25, at a fair dollar, do it. To the best of my knowledge, the only mega figures of 8.5 or 9 mil per, are coming from fans and media, not the principals.

the 8.5-9mil are coming from comparables.. not that hard to speculate.. meanwhile fans here call miller a top 10 player in the league but he's going to sign for short term well below the market? comparable such as zib.. 8.5mil for 8 years.. not out of the realm of possibility miller ask for 8.5mil 7 years? as it would end them both at the exact same age.. like the fan base like to pump the tire of the player like he's a top 10 player he's superstar elite etc etc etc but when others come up with reasonable numbers based on market we are way out to lunch meanwhile their below market short term deal is more realistic. re signing players always have it's risk.. but it's extra risk when you are signing a guy 30+ to a massive contract vs signing a guy that's 28 to a significantly lower deal.

[wai_lai416]

24 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

We shouldn't jump to conclusions on saying it's an anchor contract until it actually becomes an anchor.  Until it happens, let's just see how it plays out.  1st season, so far so good, played a little better than I thought he would, so definitely not an anchor contract so far.

he wasn't great he wasn't bad at time he looked great.. at time he looked terrible.. but based on his production and his plays.. he at best played like a 6mil defenseman this year.. he's making like less than 10% less than Hughes on the cap.. but hughes outplayed him by a good 30-40% i'd say.. not quite an anchor yet.. but don't think it'll age nicely based on his play the last 3 years.

[Fan since 82]

10 hours ago, stawns said:

I'd actually love to see them go back to one ref and three officials, but I suspect that would make you more upset because there would be far more missed calls than there is now.  For me, the game is horribly over officiated and I can't stand watching games decided by special teams.......there's nothing more boring to watch than endless powerplays

 

If games were called properly players would know what a penalty was at all times of the game and all times of the season. I can't stand watching games decided by refs putting their whistles in their pockets and not calling anything or using make up calls to even up the penalties. If refs don't want to be responsible for deciding the outcome of a game then they should call games according to the rulebook.

[Viper007]

29 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

he wasn't great he wasn't bad at time he looked great.. at time he looked terrible.. but based on his production and his plays.. he at best played like a 6mil defenseman this year.. he's making like less than 10% less than Hughes on the cap.. but hughes outplayed him by a good 30-40% i'd say.. not quite an anchor yet.. but don't think it'll age nicely based on his play the last 3 years.

But you can't go by the last 3 years, they weren't with the Canucks.  New team makes a big difference.  Especially since Arizona isn't very good.