JT Miller -- Where do you think he will end up?

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I'm gonna make an assumption here that you are talking about a good, young Top 4 RHD... who exactly are you thinking of?  I find there would be very, very few options to pick from.  When a team has a good, young TOP 4 RHD, they are highly unlikely to trade them away.

doesn't have to be a rhd, they have the flexibility of time in the off season, doesn't even have to be a dman.  They can make the best deal they can get and then make other deals to move pieces around for the right fit. They can even sign a rhd to fill that spot..........they'll get a lesser deal, but they get the gift of time n the off season

 

But I certainly think Sam Girard who plays both sides would be a good piece to build a deal around, they might even be able to pry Byram out of there as well.

[Baggins]

7 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Waiting until the next TDL runs the added risk that JT’s production slides or he is injured. Obviously there is a bottom line ask that has to be offered. If the decision is to move him then the Canucks should do it if all is equal. Get the new assets into the mix sooner than later. Especially true if a RD is part of the deal. 

GM's living in fear don't tend hold their jobs long. "I had to move him because - what if...". "What if" they simply re-sign him? "What if" we're solidly in a playoff spot at the deadline? 

[wai_lai416]

8 hours ago, HKSR said:

That's nice.  Canucks will then trade him away, and he can go and bug someone else to pay him more than any other UFA forward his age has ever received since the salary cap came into effect.  It's really that simple. 

 

You also need to wrap your brain around the fact he and his agent couldn't give a damn what his AAV is.  They care about what his total earnings will be.

He could get $9M x 7 in UFA, but the Canucks could give him $7.875M x 8 and he'd end up with the same dollar value and 1 year of extra security.  MATH.

 

lol 1 extra year security from what? play for free? why work 7 years for 63mil when u can work 8 years for 63mil.. MATH.. okie

[HKSR]

41 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol 1 extra year security from what? play for free? why work 7 years for 63mil when u can work 8 years for 63mil.. MATH.. okie

If he signs an 8 year deal, one has to assume he wants to play 8 years.  If he signs for 7, he might need to move to another city in year 8.

[wai_lai416]

5 minutes ago, HKSR said:

If he signs an 8 year deal, one has to assume he wants to play 8 years.  If he signs for 7, he might need to move to another city in year 8.

ok? so he either could re-sign with the team he's with for cheap for extra pay or he could just retired and not take more pounding? unless you are suggesting he wants to play the 8th year regardless and he's good enough to earn another contract so he makes the team by default and sits in a pressbox

[HKSR]

5 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

ok? so he either could re-sign with the team he's with for cheap for extra pay or he could just retired and not take more pounding? unless you are suggesting he wants to play the 8th year regardless and he's good enough to earn another contract so he makes the team by default and sits in a pressbox

I'm suggesting if he wants to play professional hockey until a certain age, he may want security to remain in the same city for the duration of their career.  Just cuz he would sign for cheap doesn't mean the team will want him.

[N4ZZY]

15 hours ago, IBatch said:

Every single team that's in the exact same position, year after year, almost  always still get a grade A prospect,  a decent roster player and a first rounder (or two seconds which in most cases is better) for a player as good as Miller...Obviously the offers weren't that great to not have Miller later ... could be better or the same next TDL.    

almost always. 

 

I'm just worried that the Canucks can't get that, then what? Miller walks for free? one of the largest assets walks for nothing? 

 

That could cripple this franchise for a while...

 

[cuporbust]

Calgary 

[Pickly]

1 hour ago, N4ZZY said:

almost always. 

 

I'm just worried that the Canucks can't get that, then what? Miller walks for free? one of the largest assets walks for nothing? 

 

That could cripple this franchise for a while...

 

This management group isn’t going to let an asset like Miller walk for nothing. That I can bet the house on so no need to panic. 

[wai_lai416]

4 hours ago, HKSR said:

I'm suggesting if he wants to play professional hockey until a certain age, he may want security to remain in the same city for the duration of their career.  Just cuz he would sign for cheap doesn't mean the team will want him.

so basically you are suggesting he wants to play in vancouver till 38 even though he's not good enough but because he's willing to lower his aav by signing and extra year it's worth it to have 1 year worth of almost 8mil dead cap just so we can lower his aav by 1mil? that makes 0 sense.. u don't think the management will just buy him out in that 8th year or dump him to a team like arizona if he's not good enough? 

 

if the canucks say were good in the 8th year and are competitive to challenge for the cup.. but miller is an anchor on there but wants to stay on the team to try and win a cup.. u really don't think the canucks or any team in the league would do anything and everything to get rid of him to free up the 8mil to try and win a cup? lol

 

and if he would sign for cheap doesn't mean the team will want him.. so if the team doesn't want him for cheap obviously he's not good enough for the team... if we don't want him for say 1mil.. why would we want him at 7.875mil or whatever u suggested? and if no team in the league wants you for cheap.. then maybe you should consider retiring as the game have already passed you by?

[IBatch]

18 hours ago, HKSR said:

I think there's a lot less teams than you think that would be willing to offer $9M+ for a 30 year old Miller. 

 

Go back and look at the original post and tell me which teams you think would be willing to shell out $9M+, but are also teams that Miller would want to go to (ie. contender or close to it).

They'd have to offer that if they want him for five years .... as a starting point.   Personally i'd rather do that then have him at 7 for 7 or 8 years ...

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, cuporbust said:

Calgary 

That's where all the Canucks go isn't it? Make about 6% more in money - can still see the mountains, and the come over to BC and purchase houses at an inflated rate to holiday in.    It's been like that in Calgary for decades - all the way to Vancouver Island. 

[IBatch]

8 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

almost always. 

 

I'm just worried that the Canucks can't get that, then what? Miller walks for free? one of the largest assets walks for nothing? 

 

That could cripple this franchise for a while...

 

You know what could be worse then that?   Signing Miller to a Zib deal (all front loaded) for 7 years .... and watching him completely fall off the face of the planet aka Okposo, Ladd, LE and a whole bunch of other guys .... it's a risk to sign him too.   It's also a risk to trade him.   What they will actually do we will have to wait and see.   Personally i'd be happy to have Miller for the playoffs and see him walk over getting bent over on his next deal.   He's a bargain at 5.25 .... not so much at 9 plus just about where he should be IF he's a PPG plus player.    He's got a decent chance of maintaining that pace for 3-4 years.   And that's actually being a little generous.   After that?   Anchor.    So there are worse things that could happen.   I for one couldn't stand this site watching yet another former great player for us getting his name dragged around in the mud because he's no longer performing and would absolutely fine if Miller helps the team get to the payoffs next year and then just signs his monster deal somewhere else.    

 

Edit:  Crippling.   The worst case is we actually re-sign him and then it's all downhill from there.    Another thing which many have already mentioned thats is bad too - is the possibility of losing others because we don't keep him.   All these things have been hashed out.   Allvin did say this team can't afford to see UFAs walk for nothing.   If he's true to his word that means he's signed - or traded.   I highly doubt he's traded if we are firmly in the playoffs next TDL which odds are high we will be with everyone back.    Think one of Horvat/Miller/Brock get traded though, and it's likely Brock next off season.  

Edited May 6, 2022 by IBatch

[HKSR]

7 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

so basically you are suggesting he wants to play in vancouver till 38 even though he's not good enough but because he's willing to lower his aav by signing and extra year it's worth it to have 1 year worth of almost 8mil dead cap just so we can lower his aav by 1mil? that makes 0 sense.. u don't think the management will just buy him out in that 8th year or dump him to a team like arizona if he's not good enough? 

 

if the canucks say were good in the 8th year and are competitive to challenge for the cup.. but miller is an anchor on there but wants to stay on the team to try and win a cup.. u really don't think the canucks or any team in the league would do anything and everything to get rid of him to free up the 8mil to try and win a cup? lol

 

and if he would sign for cheap doesn't mean the team will want him.. so if the team doesn't want him for cheap obviously he's not good enough for the team... if we don't want him for say 1mil.. why would we want him at 7.875mil or whatever u suggested? and if no team in the league wants you for cheap.. then maybe you should consider retiring as the game have already passed you by?

That's why you see NTCs and NMCs as players get older.  This isn't a new thing.  People have an age in mind for when they want to retire in any profession.  The last thing they would want to do is have to move in their last year before retirement.

[wai_lai416]

13 minutes ago, HKSR said:

That's why you see NTCs and NMCs as players get older.  This isn't a new thing.  People have an age in mind for when they want to retire in any profession.  The last thing they would want to do is have to move in their last year before retirement.

lol they have ntc and nmc coz they don't want to be moved or dictate where they want to go... but you are saying he wants to be here even he's not good enough to be a 4th liner in the 8th year and if he only signed for 7 years there might be no team that wants him for that 8th year when he wants to retire... ok so no one wants him for that 8th year at league minimum.. so why are the canucks wasting a roster spot with him at 7.875?? he literally would just get bought out.. literally 0 benefits to him.. and if he was to go on a massive decline and not live up to his contract.. and get bought out in the 5th year.. he would have guaranteed himself a lot more money if he gets bought out in the 5th year of a 7 year contract at 63mil vs a 8 year contract at 63mil lol.. 

 

signing a 8 year 7.875 vs a 7 year 9mil guarantees him absolutely nothing about security of that 8th year other than he will literally work for free if he makes it to that 8th year.. if he's good enough to say make league minimum and be effective player in that 8th year? i'm sure the team will bring him back.. even if he signs a 7 year contract.. and if he's not good enough to make the team in that 8th year even if he signed 8 year contract?? the team 100% buying him out or ask him to retire to save his dignity.

[stawns]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

You know what could be worse then that?   Signing Miller to a Zib deal (all front loaded) for 7 years .... and watching him completely fall off the face of the planet aka Okposo, Ladd, LE and a whole bunch of other guys .... it's a risk to sign him too.   It's also a risk to trade him.   What they will actually do we will have to wait and see.   Personally i'd be happy to have Miller for the playoffs and see him walk over getting bent over on his next deal.   He's a bargain at 5.25 .... not so much at 9 plus just about where he should be IF he's a PPG plus player.    He's got a decent chance of maintaining that pace for 3-4 years.   And that's actually being a little generous.   After that?   Anchor.    So there are worse things that could happen.   I for one couldn't stand this site watching yet another former great player for us getting his name dragged around in the mud because he's no longer performing and would absolutely fine if Miller helps the team get to the payoffs next year and then just signs his monster deal somewhere else.    

 

Edit:  Crippling.   The worst case is we actually re-sign him and then it's all downhill from there.    Another thing which many have already mentioned thats is bad too - is the possibility of losing others because we don't keep him.   All these things have been hashed out.   Allvin did say this team can't afford to see UFAs walk for nothing.   If he's true to his word that means he's signed - or traded.   I highly doubt he's traded if we are firmly in the playoffs next TDL which odds are high we will be with everyone back.    Think one of Horvat/Miller/Brock get traded though, and it's likely Brock next off season.  

I don't get the argument that other players will walk because they deal Miller.........who and why?

[kloubek]

21 hours ago, stawns said:

Let's be honest, how often does that actually happen?

 

If Miller takes significantly less than market value and significantly lower term, I'd be more than happy to see him back.  Boeser, on the other hand, just doesn't fit and they need to move on from him.

You're right - it doesn't happen a lot, for obvious reasons. But in order to hold a salary as high as he could command elsewhere would hamstring this organization - especially as the contract enters the final years of what would likely take him to retirement. And if he isn't willing (which I would appreciate) then we need to move on.

 

As for Boeser, I actually feel the same way with him as Miller - although I doubt GMs are knocking down our door to get him quite like they probably are with Miller. Yes, he had a down year - there is no doubt. But he's a great guy who I believe will be damn near a point per game player in his full prime. No, he isn't the fastest in the world but he isn't a slug like some make him out to be. And no he's not all that physical - but those are the points that can be used to try to keep his contract offer from being too high. 

[wai_lai416]

21 hours ago, wildcam said:

Well if a players 30 years old and wants at 6 year X 8.8 million Dollar contract with his previous best season 72 points you don't sign him to big contract?

I Know he had 99 points this season but previous best was 72.. Miller is a 70-76 point guy now and will decline to 55--points in 3 years

No way do Canucks want to be up against cap..Canucks are not ready for good playoff run for 2--3 years from now?

Miller trade return will really set up future nice..Good young RD man under 24, top 9 forward under 25, trading teams top prospect and 2nd round draft pick..

Have to make a trade like this.. New management group will be much different and bold.

If Millers contract demand 8.8 million X 6 years he will be traded -- I can see Canucks offering longer deal lower cap hit.. 7.2 million -- I think Miller will be traded..

 

 

lol i like how ppl keep using shortened season to devalue a players stats.. well his previous best is 72 points in 69 games.. and last season he only got 46 points.. while i'm all in for trading miller.. the way you guys use stats from shortened season against players i just find funny.. why did they sign svechnikov to 7.75mil contract?? his career high is 61 points and he only got 42 last season.. they should be using players with 61 points in a full season as comparable vs his 3/4 season production.. 

[HKSR]

1 hour ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol they have ntc and nmc coz they don't want to be moved or dictate where they want to go... but you are saying he wants to be here even he's not good enough to be a 4th liner in the 8th year and if he only signed for 7 years there might be no team that wants him for that 8th year when he wants to retire... ok so no one wants him for that 8th year at league minimum.. so why are the canucks wasting a roster spot with him at 7.875?? he literally would just get bought out.. literally 0 benefits to him.. and if he was to go on a massive decline and not live up to his contract.. and get bought out in the 5th year.. he would have guaranteed himself a lot more money if he gets bought out in the 5th year of a 7 year contract at 63mil vs a 8 year contract at 63mil lol.. 

 

signing a 8 year 7.875 vs a 7 year 9mil guarantees him absolutely nothing about security of that 8th year other than he will literally work for free if he makes it to that 8th year.. if he's good enough to say make league minimum and be effective player in that 8th year? i'm sure the team will bring him back.. even if he signs a 7 year contract.. and if he's not good enough to make the team in that 8th year even if he signed 8 year contract?? the team 100% buying him out or ask him to retire to save his dignity.

Look at it this way.  Let's say if Miller wants to play until he's 38.  The only issue here is whether or not he's still a useful player at 38.  Maybe he's only a $4M or $5M player in Year 8.

 

So what could happen?

 

The difference with signing an 8 year deal with Vancouver vs 7 year deal with another team is this.  Let's say he's a useful $4M to $5M player in Year 8:

 

1. He signs an 8 year deal with Vancouver:  Vancouver hangs onto him even though he's a bit overpaid because he has a NMC.  Could he be bought out in Year 8? Sure... but unlikely as he's still a useful player on a team that is in their prime contender years.  Buying him out and replacing him with another player while sitting on dead cap is a lateral move for the Canucks.

 

2.  He signs a 7 year deal with another team and becomes a UFA after that.  There's no guarantee that the team that signed him to a 7 year deal right now will want him for Year 8.  ESPECIALLY true if that team is a contender right now.  In 7 years, the likelihood is that team will be rebuilding, and he could be bought out after year 6.  So now he has moved once away from Vancouver, and again at age 36.

 

So clearly, there's more security with the 8 year deal.

 

Let's say he's NOT a useful player in Year 8:

1.  As he has a NMC, Vancouver could either hang onto him for that final year (which happens all the time), or else he gets bought out and would retire (as he's not a useful player anymore).  Either way, he is in Vancouver.  Total income = $63 (bought out -- by definition it means he got paid his final year).

 

2.  He signs a 7 year deal with another team and would retire after that.  Total income = $63M. 

 

So if he's not a useful player after year 7, he's in exactly the same financial situation anyways.  Nothing gained or lost in either scenario.

 

If security is a primary goal for him, signing an 8 year deal certainly helps.  Of course, this is all predicated on him wanting to play until 38yo.  He may not, in which case, there's no point arguing about this lol.

 

And anyways,  this all stemmed from the fact that Stawns argued that an AAV that starts with $7.xxx would be laughed at.  I just wanted to show that the total income at $7.xxx from Vancouver could be equal to a $9M deal from another team.

[HKSR]

4 hours ago, IBatch said:

They'd have to offer that if they want him for five years .... as a starting point.   Personally i'd rather do that then have him at 7 for 7 or 8 years ...

I'd be good either way...

 

$7.xx for 8 years with a rising cap is equivalent to $5.xx in 7 or 8 years. 

$9.xx for 5 years buys his best years and we could probably get out of it in the 5th year if we absolutely had to.

 

I still think it'll be a 6 year deal.  My original estimate was $9.275 x 6 ... I'm gonna stick to that and see what happens if/when he does sign lol