[Proposal] Miller to LA

[Coconuts]

20 hours ago, Vinny in Vancouver said:

Would you do this trade without LA's 19th overall pick?

 

I'd be reluctant to, not interested in giving Miller away. I think I'd be more open to being flexible on a potential prospect return than budging on the 1st.

 

Clarke, 1st, and something to wiggle on a bit perhaps. Would still have to be a good piece.

 

20 hours ago, JM_ said:

So this one is good, its not all magic beans which is nice to see, at least a couple of beans are sprouting. 

 

Miller is an excellent replacement for Brown, no doubt. He'd be an excellent fit for them.

 

We would be making a division rival quite a bit stronger, so I would want what you've proposed to make it happen, but it would hurt us in the standings on some nights.

 

So I'd want Vilardi and Clarke for Miller. I don't think they give us the 1st, but maybe we can pry their 2nd?

 

 

Yeah, I like the idea of going after already drafted, known quantities. 

 

He would be a good fit imo, and with Quick expiring essentially eating up any raise they'd still have flex when Kopitar's deal expired the following season. Maybe Kopitar re-signs, but probably not for 10M. 

 

Ehhh, the divisional rival bit doesn't bother me much, I get it but I think people get too hung up on it sometimes. Yes, we give up a good piece, but if the whole idea is getting good pieces back does it really matter all that much? It's not as if not trading with them is going to stop them from working to improve their team anyway, you make moves that benefit your team. 

 

I'd be bullish on Clarke and the 1st, more flexible on the third piece. But it depends on what they're willing to give up instead. 

 

20 hours ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Rob Blake announced a few days ago that Alex Turcotte sustained a concussion.

 

First one, but Alex Turcotte has been injured often in the past two seasons since turning pro and its been a tough development path for him.  Also not very keen on Gabe Vilardi, skating has been an issue since his draft year and it hasn't really improved since being drafted, and overall just doesn't play with enough pace.

 

I wonder if LA would be willing to part with Rasmus Kupari instead. I overall like the construction of that deal though, I would just sub in Kupari in for VIlardi and Turcotte.

Concussions are def concerning, but if it's his first one ehhhh? I get the injury concerns though. I'm not as keen on Vilardi either, but if he was the forward they'd be willing to move in a deal involving Clarke I'd still take him. Kupari is an interesting alternative, but I guess it depends on what the see him as. I think that sort of substitution would be alright as they're likely in a similar value bracket.

 

20 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said:

If they offered Vilardi and the 1st, id take it. Miller is not going to net you the moon with one year remaining on his contract. 

 

Then draft: Korchinski/Mintyukov/Bichsel and Luneau/Chesley

 

Future line up:

 

Garland - Petey - Boeser

Hoglander - Horvat - Podz

???  - Vilardi -  ???

 

Hughes - Chesley/Luneau

Korchinski/Mintyukov/Bichsel  - OEL

Rathbone - ???

 

 

I think that's not nearly enough imo, especially as I'm not super sold on Vilardi. Gotta get Clarke or a young RD in return. 

 

19 hours ago, wildcam said:

Like trade and LA Kings are loaded with young talent..LA need Miller 29..  Kopitar 34, quick 35, Daughty 33...Window is now...

Miller 29  -  2023 -3rd rounder ---- LA

Faber 21, 6'1 RD,   Valardi 23, 6'3- C,  Lemieux, 6'1, 215, W- RFA -2 million? 1st rounder 19th overall 2022----4th rounder 2023

Like Vilardi good size ready to take big step....Faber, bright future and Lemieux adds needed grit and toughness...

Turcotte will not be added or Clarke....

I'm not sold on their window being now, but I do think they'll want to continue to be competitive as their youth take steps forward and Miller would help them be competitive. They really need Byfield to become the player he was drafted to be, but he's not close to that yet. LA's done a good job rebuilding but they'll want to continue playing meaningful games going forward as Kopitar and Quick eventually step to the side. 

 

The main piece of any deal for me would be Clarke tbh, he's got stud written all over him.

 

19 hours ago, HKSR said:

If we're trading Miller to a division rival, that team better be paying through the nose to acquire him.

 

It starts with Clarke or Durzi... a sprinkling of 1 or 2 of their young forwards... a 1st round pick... and a 2nd round pick.

Agreed, but at the same time I think people get hung up on the divisional thing a bit too much. 

 

Clarke, yes. Durzi is interesting but he'll also be 24 in October, I'd really gun for Clarke. But yeah, Durzi fits with our young core's age group and he's nothing to sneeze at. I see the 1st as a must, some of their top end young forwards seem interchangeable. Byfield is top tier, after that I'd reckon a lot of em hold similar value, I'd go after Turcotte. 

 

I don't think you get a 2nd on top of a 1st. Clarke, their 1st, and a young forward seems reasonable to me. I don't see us running away from a Miller trade like gangbusters, we'll get good pieces back but it likely won't be a robbery. Rutherford has a reputation for making fair trades, I figure Al will be more of the same going forward. Could we win the trade? I hope so, but I don't think we'll get a sky high package for a 29 year old with one year remaining on his deal. 

 

If Miller works out an extension that's palatable to them in advance maybe we get more imo. 

 

19 hours ago, IBatch said:

Would we give up a couple former highly touted first round  players and a 19th overall for a guy that's almost certainly going to become an anchor on a long term deal?   Just playing the devils advocate here.   Blake isn't going to dump the guys his former cup winners cost him to trade just to go all in on a swan song one more time around Doughty/Quick and Kopitar.   Too bad Wilson is takin a reprieve, he's the guy that maybe would do something as foolish as that.   That's mostly what they got from their suffrage right there, by trading a lot of vets to make it work.    Don't want to be a debby downer, but Miller is going to get us a roster player in return (that is ho-hum) a middling to late first and one grade A prospect.  

Depends on how you're looking at it tbh, I'm not looking at a Miller trade as them trying to go all in and milk the last dregs of their cup winning core, I look at it as a way for them to be a competitive team that ideally plays meaningful games down the stretch or come playoff time as their youth continue to take steps forward. Even with the return on a Miller trade LA's got plenty of quality young youth left, and their roster is a mix of youth and some savvy vets as is. 

 

I look at it as a way for them to start taking steps forward. LA has quality youth, but a lot of their roster is prime aged and they should be trying to compete. Danault is 29, Arvidsson is 29, Iafollo will be 29 this winer, Kempe will be 26 in September, Moore is 27, Lemiux is 26, Doughty will only be 33 this winter. Peterson will be 28 in October. Bringing in Miller probably doesn't win them a cup while he's there, but if he can help them be competitive while the next wave develop into difference makers that could very well make it worth it to LA. Winning environment and all that. 

 

And I mean, wasn't that something we were trying to do under Benning despite our lack of success? He's not the only GM out there who sees the value in that sort of thing I'm sure, though making it work successfully is the tricky part. 

 

I'm not expecting us to rob someone blind for Miller, but a slightly later 1st, a young RD with promise but who remains unproven, and one of their young forwards who isn't Byfield doesn't seem like an outrageous price for a center who nearly put up a 100 points and who's been around ppg or better the last three seasons, plus a serviceable D. 

 

Boils down to what LA envisions their future looking like. Maybe it doesn't happen, maybe it does, but that's the fun of proposals and discussion ain't it?

 

17 hours ago, D-Money said:

LA is rumoured to be looking at shopping Durzi. With Doughty, Roy, and Spence - plus Clarke, Grans, and Faber in the system - they’re pretty set for right-side D.

I think this is a realistic trade idea for both sides. Doesn’t have a real high-end piece, but works towards solving our RD dilemma, and gives a big boost to the farm system.

 

Durzi is interesting but I'd be bullish on Clarke. And I agree, there isn't a slam dunk piece (though I'd say Clarke is the closest to being one) but you get three quality pieces in return. 

 

16 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

Upvote for trading Miller because I think it needs to be done on or before draft day.  Iffy when a prospect gets a concussion though.

I get where you're coming from with concussions, but if it's his first I'd still make the gamble. I do think Miller ends up being moved.

 

15 hours ago, Johnny Torts said:

Miller needs to return a LOT. His value is higher than trade deadline at this point because of his continued performance. 

This is pretty good value, you're not getting a kings ransom for a 29 year old player with a year left on his deal regardless of how many points he put up imo. Even with an extension worked out prior to a trade. If he were 25-26, maybe. But if he were that age we'd just keep him. 

 

Anyone expecting us to rob a team blind on a return for Miller is likely going to be underwhelmed if he's moved. I'd argue he had more value prior to the deadline because a team would have gotten two cracks at the playoffs with him at 5.25M as opposed to a single crack before he needs an extension.

 

12 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

Yeah. The sentiment from me. If the Canucks are trading Miller to a divisional rival, no way they don’t get the &^@#ing moon coming back their way. 

 

L.A. better pay up big time, or else no way he goes there. 

 

I don't think they'll get the moon from anyone, rival or not. The divisional rival bit is oversold imo, I get it but at the same time if you're getting good pieces in return for your good piece it works out. Us not trading with them isn't going to stop LA from working to improve their team, if they really want a center they'd just trade with someone else. In theory if we like the pieces any team is willing to give up for one of our players we should pull the trigger. 

 

Yes, you've gotta weigh how much you improve another team, but on the flip side they're also considering how much they're improving you. It's a two way street. They won't get Miller without paying a good price, and Clarke looks like a great piece to be. 

[Bure_Pavel]

59 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

 

I think that's not nearly enough imo, especially as I'm not super sold on Vilardi. Gotta get Clarke or a young RD in return. 

 

 

Im pretty high on Vilardi, but Clarke is a very high end A+ prospect and it would likely only be Clarke and a 2nd in return imo. Which I would probably be ok with if management was 90% positive Clarke will become a top 4 Dman. 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

I'd be reluctant to, not interested in giving Miller away. I think I'd be more open to being flexible on a potential prospect return than budging on the 1st.

 

Clarke, 1st, and something to wiggle on a bit perhaps. Would still have to be a good piece.

 

Yeah, I like the idea of going after already drafted, known quantities. 

 

He would be a good fit imo, and with Quick expiring essentially eating up any raise they'd still have flex when Kopitar's deal expired the following season. Maybe Kopitar re-signs, but probably not for 10M. 

 

Ehhh, the divisional rival bit doesn't bother me much, I get it but I think people get too hung up on it sometimes. Yes, we give up a good piece, but if the whole idea is getting good pieces back does it really matter all that much? It's not as if not trading with them is going to stop them from working to improve their team anyway, you make moves that benefit your team. 

 

I'd be bullish on Clarke and the 1st, more flexible on the third piece. But it depends on what they're willing to give up instead. 

 

Concussions are def concerning, but if it's his first one ehhhh? I get the injury concerns though. I'm not as keen on Vilardi either, but if he was the forward they'd be willing to move in a deal involving Clarke I'd still take him. Kupari is an interesting alternative, but I guess it depends on what the see him as. I think that sort of substitution would be alright as they're likely in a similar value bracket.

 

I think that's not nearly enough imo, especially as I'm not super sold on Vilardi. Gotta get Clarke or a young RD in return. 

 

I'm not sold on their window being now, but I do think they'll want to continue to be competitive as their youth take steps forward and Miller would help them be competitive. They really need Byfield to become the player he was drafted to be, but he's not close to that yet. LA's done a good job rebuilding but they'll want to continue playing meaningful games going forward as Kopitar and Quick eventually step to the side. 

 

The main piece of any deal for me would be Clarke tbh, he's got stud written all over him.

 

Agreed, but at the same time I think people get hung up on the divisional thing a bit too much. 

 

Clarke, yes. Durzi is interesting but he'll also be 24 in October, I'd really gun for Clarke. But yeah, Durzi fits with our young core's age group and he's nothing to sneeze at. I see the 1st as a must, some of their top end young forwards seem interchangeable. Byfield is top tier, after that I'd reckon a lot of em hold similar value, I'd go after Turcotte. 

 

I don't think you get a 2nd on top of a 1st. Clarke, their 1st, and a young forward seems reasonable to me. I don't see us running away from a Miller trade like gangbusters, we'll get good pieces back but it likely won't be a robbery. Rutherford has a reputation for making fair trades, I figure Al will be more of the same going forward. Could we win the trade? I hope so, but I don't think we'll get a sky high package for a 29 year old with one year remaining on his deal. 

 

If Miller works out an extension that's palatable to them in advance maybe we get more imo. 

 

Depends on how you're looking at it tbh, I'm not looking at a Miller trade as them trying to go all in and milk the last dregs of their cup winning core, I look at it as a way for them to be a competitive team that ideally plays meaningful games down the stretch or come playoff time as their youth continue to take steps forward. Even with the return on a Miller trade LA's got plenty of quality young youth left, and their roster is a mix of youth and some savvy vets as is. 

 

I look at it as a way for them to start taking steps forward. LA has quality youth, but a lot of their roster is prime aged and they should be trying to compete. Danault is 29, Arvidsson is 29, Iafollo will be 29 this winer, Kempe will be 26 in September, Moore is 27, Lemiux is 26, Doughty will only be 33 this winter. Peterson will be 28 in October. Bringing in Miller probably doesn't win them a cup while he's there, but if he can help them be competitive while the next wave develop into difference makers that could very well make it worth it to LA. Winning environment and all that. 

 

And I mean, wasn't that something we were trying to do under Benning despite our lack of success? He's not the only GM out there who sees the value in that sort of thing I'm sure, though making it work successfully is the tricky part. 

 

I'm not expecting us to rob someone blind for Miller, but a slightly later 1st, a young RD with promise but who remains unproven, and one of their young forwards who isn't Byfield doesn't seem like an outrageous price for a center who nearly put up a 100 points and who's been around ppg or better the last three seasons, plus a serviceable D. 

 

Boils down to what LA envisions their future looking like. Maybe it doesn't happen, maybe it does, but that's the fun of proposals and discussion ain't it?

 

Durzi is interesting but I'd be bullish on Clarke. And I agree, there isn't a slam dunk piece (though I'd say Clarke is the closest to being one) but you get three quality pieces in return. 

 

I get where you're coming from with concussions, but if it's his first I'd still make the gamble. I do think Miller ends up being moved.

 

This is pretty good value, you're not getting a kings ransom for a 29 year old player with a year left on his deal regardless of how many points he put up imo. Even with an extension worked out prior to a trade. If he were 25-26, maybe. But if he were that age we'd just keep him. 

 

Anyone expecting us to rob a team blind on a return for Miller is likely going to be underwhelmed if he's moved. I'd argue he had more value prior to the deadline because a team would have gotten two cracks at the playoffs with him at 5.25M as opposed to a single crack before he needs an extension.

 

I don't think they'll get the moon from anyone, rival or not. The divisional rival bit is oversold imo, I get it but at the same time if you're getting good pieces in return for your good piece it works out. Us not trading with them isn't going to stop LA from working to improve their team, if they really want a center they'd just trade with someone else. In theory if we like the pieces any team is willing to give up for one of our players we should pull the trigger. 

 

Yes, you've gotta weigh how much you improve another team, but on the flip side they're also considering how much they're improving you. It's a two way street. They won't get Miller without paying a good price, and Clarke looks like a great piece to be. 

Still think that you are asking too much for Miller.   An 8th overall who actually slipped a little in the draft - some had him going near the top.   IF ARI got Clarke JB would have been forever roasted (not that he shouldn't anyways...) .... To me it's a pretty fair trade straight across without adding Turcotte and this years 19th overall - that's half their youth right there as far as their trades that forced them to get worse so they could re-set around their aging core.     Which is exactly what Blake's intentions were all along.   3 first rounders for Miller isn't going to happen.    If they offered us this deal we'd be coming out like bandits.   Anyone arguing against doing this trade has their heads in the clouds still regarding what they think Miller can get us in a trade. 

[Coconuts]

5 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Im pretty high on Vilardi, but Clarke is a very high end A+ prospect and it would likely only be Clarke and a 2nd in return imo. Which I would probably be ok with if management was 90% positive Clarke will become a top 4 Dman. 

I  still think it'd have to be more. Maybe something along the lines of what IBatch is saying? 

 

I do think we should get at least a 1st along with Clarke, those are the two pieces I'm most interested in. The third piece is where I'd be willing to move around. 

 

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Still think that you are asking too much for Miller.   An 8th overall who actually slipped a little in the draft - some had him going near the top.   IF ARI got Clarke JB would have been forever roasted (not that he shouldn't anyways...) .... To me it's a pretty fair trade straight across without adding Turcotte and this years 19th overall - that's half their youth right there as far as their trades that forced them to get worse so they could re-set around their aging core.     Which is exactly what Blake's intentions were all along.   3 first rounders for Miller isn't going to happen.    If they offered us this deal we'd be coming out like bandits.   Anyone arguing against doing this trade has their heads in the clouds still regarding what they think Miller can get us in a trade. 

So what do you think we'd realistically get in return? Clarke, a 1st and someone off their roster? Even without Turcotte that's still in the direction of something that'd be acceptable imo. Because I agree, I don't think we're going to come away with the grand slam return some envision. Not for a 29 year old with a year left on his deal, and even with an extension in place. Not at 29. 

 

We'll get a good return, but any deal we make is likely going to be one both sides consider fair. 

[Bure_Pavel]

6 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I  still think it'd have to be more. Maybe something along the lines of what IBatch is saying? 

 

I do think we should get at least a 1st along with Clarke, those are the two pieces I'm most interested in. The third piece is where I'd be willing to move around. 

 

So what do you think we'd realistically get in return? Clarke, a 1st and someone off their roster? Even without Turcotte that's still in the direction of something that'd be acceptable imo. Because I agree, I don't think we're going to come away with the grand slam return some envision. Not for a 29 year old with a year left on his deal, and even with an extension in place. Not at 29. 

 

We'll get a good return, but any deal we make is likely going to be one both sides consider fair. 

If they offering Clarke + 1st, you take that and run. Could pretty much rebuild the D core in one swoop. 

 

I personally dont think LA is a good fit for Miller, likely someone who is more desperate for a chance to win next year and can reap the rewards of Miller at under 3 million cap 50% retained. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Bure_Pavel

[IBatch]

9 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I  still think it'd have to be more. Maybe something along the lines of what IBatch is saying? 

 

I do think we should get at least a 1st along with Clarke, those are the two pieces I'm most interested in. The third piece is where I'd be willing to move around. 

 

So what do you think we'd realistically get in return? Clarke, a 1st and someone off their roster? Even without Turcotte that's still in the direction of something that'd be acceptable imo. Because I agree, I don't think we're going to come away with the grand slam return some envision. Not for a 29 year old with a year left on his deal, and even with an extension in place. Not at 29. 

 

We'll get a good return, but any deal we make is likely going to be one both sides consider fair. 

I don't think LA is going to be that interested in Miller.    He's just too old for what they are working towards.   They are hoping to have one last dance with their old guard, but they aren't going to be giving up the young assets to make it work.   Wouldn't they just go after Forsberg for free instead?  Or someone else? Oh and if they did want to play - Miller for Clarke straight across would be fine.   If we could get a pick too we'd be lucky.  

Edited May 19, 2022 by IBatch

[IBatch]

14 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

If they offering Clarke + 1st, you take that and run. Could pretty much rebuild the D core in one swoop. 

That's how i see it too.  Clarke all by himself is something we should be happy to get.    For reference Lundqvist doesn't even crack the top 100.   Rathbone is around 60.   We'd be re-coup our first plus some from last season ....  some of course is cap.   I'd be fine with just playing Miller and making the playoffs over re-signing him to a long term deal he never is going to earn.   Tavares.   He isn't Tavares.   In other words we get 3 years on his next deal ... after that ... ugh.  

 

Edit:  Schneider in the high 30's (although won't be on the list next season)...Clarke in the low teens ....

Edited May 19, 2022 by IBatch

[Coconuts]

7 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

If they offering Clarke + 1st, you take that and run. Could pretty much rebuild the D core in one swoop. 

 

I personally dont think LA is a good fit for Miller, likely someone who is more desperate for a chance to win next year and can reap the rewards of Miller at under 3 million cap 50% retained. 

I think I'd take that, but I'm also high on Clarke. 

 

I guess that depends on whether management is willing to retain or not, but I do agree that there are other teams that likely have interest. 

 

4 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I don't think LA is going to be that interested in Miller.    He's just too old for what they are working towards.   They are hoping to have one last dance with their old guard, but they aren't going to be giving up the young assets to make it work.   Wouldn't they just go after Forsberg for free instead?  Or someone else? Oh and if they did want to play - Miller for Clarke straight across would be fine.   If we could get a pick too we'd be lucky.  

I don't think Forsberg makes it to UFA imo, I think Nashville finds a way to get that done. I don't think there'll be a glut of top players to pick from imo. Pittsburgh likely finds a way to keep Malkin, I could see Giroux going back to Philly on a cheaper deal or staying out East with a contender, Bergeron won't go anywhere that isn't Boston. Maybe Kadri but I think they'd be better off with Miller. 

 

I like Clarke, but I don't think him on his own would be enough. Maybe we differ there. He's a great prospect, but given he's unproven at the professional level I think it'd take more. 

[IBatch]

7 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I think I'd take that, but I'm also high on Clarke. 

 

I guess that depends on whether management is willing to retain or not, but I do agree that there are other teams that likely have interest. 

 

I don't think Forsberg makes it to UFA imo, I think Nashville finds a way to get that done. I don't think there'll be a glut of top players to pick from imo. Pittsburgh likely finds a way to keep Malkin, I could see Giroux going back to Philly on a cheaper deal or staying out East with a contender, Bergeron won't go anywhere that isn't Boston. Maybe Kadri but I think they'd be better off with Miller. 

 

I like Clarke, but I don't think him on his own would be enough. Maybe we differ there. He's a great prospect, but given he's unproven at the professional level I think it'd take more. 

We won't get Clarke.   He's their Doughty replacement.   Too hard to find RHDs.    Schneider wasn't even in the radar with NYR...Lundqvist isn't worth the trouble for sure we could do better.   Again - what we can expect from Miller is a roster player coming back that is ho-hum to help that team with cap, a first rounder (not a high one a middling-late one) and a Grade A prospect.   Clarke is a sure thing.   About as close as they come to that anyways.    If they offered us that we take it and run.   I really don't see why LA would trade one year of Miller for much.

 

Edit:  The teams that could be interested are ones that aren't working on creating a core behind and aging one - that are trying to still win a cup.   I don't think LA is that serious about winning a cup with Doughty, Quick and Kopitar, the same way CHI isn't that interested in trying to win with Kane and Toews.   They know their window is closed.     And are working on keeping appearance whilst getting the next group up and learning from those vets.    Dallas, SJ, OTT, Boston,  COL seem like good fits though.    Only say SJ because although Wilson is on a hiatus - he's expected back lol.   And they don't rebuild (not yet at least).  

Edited May 19, 2022 by IBatch

[Coconuts]

1 minute ago, IBatch said:

We won't get Clarke.   He's their Doughty replacement.   Too hard to find RHDs.    Schneider wasn't even in the radar with NYR...Lundqvist isn't worth the trouble for sure we could do better.   Again - what we can expect from Miller is a roster player coming back that is ho-hum to help that team with cap, a first rounder (not a high one a middling-late one) and a Grade A prospect.   Clarke is a sure thing.   About as close as they come to that anyways.    If they offered us that we take it and run.   I really don't see why LA would trade one year of Miller for much. 

Because if we do trade Miller to LA I imagine there'd have to be an extension in place. I could see him signing in Cali. There are gonna be teams interested in renting him, but I figure there'll be teams who'll only be interested in trading for him if they can get term out of him.

 

I agree that a single season of Miller probably isn't worth it to a team like LA. 

[IBatch]

11 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Because if we do trade Miller to LA I imagine there'd have to be an extension in place. I could see him signing in Cali. There are gonna be teams interested in renting him, but I figure there'll be teams who'll only be interested in trading for him if they can get term out of him.

 

I agree that a single season of Miller probably isn't worth it to a team like LA. 

A trade and sign makes more sense for sure.     

 

Edit: OTT makes a lot of sense as a sign and trade but not sure he'd want to go there unless the brinks trucks were included.   They need a vet like Miller helping that young crew.    If we could get their first rounder and one of their extra tweeners that would be tough to refuse.    Miller might like it here i'm not sure.   What i'm pretty sure is going to happen is absolutely nothing around Miller.    He's coming back.    And the team won't trade him unless it's just too hard to refuse.    I'd trade him for Clarke straight across in a heartbeat.   And i love Miller.

 

Edit:  NJ as well.   They are younger then our team. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by IBatch

[Coconuts]

9 minutes ago, IBatch said:

A trade and sign makes more sense for sure.     

 

Edit: OTT makes a lot of sense as a sign and trade but not sure he'd want to go there unless the brinks trucks were included.   They need a vet like Miller helping that young crew.    If we could get their first rounder and one of their extra tweeners that would be tough to refuse.    Miller might like it here i'm not sure.   What i'm pretty sure is going to happen is absolutely nothing around Miller.    He's coming back.    And the team won't trade him unless it's just too hard to refuse.    I'd trade him for Clarke straight across in a heartbeat.   And i love Miller. 

I just don't see him going to Ottawa, they're gradually improving but he's only really getting paid there. I figure he'll end up somewhere in the US tbh. 

 

I don't think he'll be back, but I've also been on the trade Miller train since like.. November. 

 

A sign and trade would def get us more value from a team that isn't a cap constrained contender. 

 

Straight across is ballsy, I dunno if I could pull that trigger. It'd be a ballsy move by management, certainly. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Coconuts

[IBatch]

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I just don't see him going to Ottawa, they're gradually improving but he's only really getting paid there. I figure he'll end up somewhere in the US tbh. 

 

I don't think he'll be back, but I've also been on the trade Miller train since like.. November. 

 

A sign and trade would def get us more value from a team that isn't a cap constrained contender. 

 

Straight across is ballsy, I dunno if I could pull that trigger. It'd be a ballsy move by management, certainly. 

OTT has cap space and a stable of tweeners that would and should make Hoglander blush.    Not talking about their Blue Chip young guys either.    What could they have accomplished spending to the cap?   Dorain and Melnyk both said they'd be spending to the cap again soon.... Sure they might wait to see what's on the free agent market first.   Miller and a couple more vets could turn that team around fast.   Just like us they are in the highest tax bracket which doesn't help.    But they are in an enviable position of having a lot of trade chips and cap space.   Won't find many teams like them.  

[Coconuts]

25 minutes ago, IBatch said:

OTT has cap space and a stable of tweeners that would and should make Hoglander blush.    Not talking about their Blue Chip young guys either.    What could they have accomplished spending to the cap?   Dorain and Melnyk both said they'd be spending to the cap again soon.... Sure they might wait to see what's on the free agent market first.   Miller and a couple more vets could turn that team around fast.   Just like us they are in the highest tax bracket which doesn't help.    But they are in an enviable position of having a lot of trade chips and cap space.   Won't find many teams like them.  

As a trade partner, I agree. I just don't see Miller being interested in extending there, and I don't see Ottawa moving assets for a player they won't be able to retain. 

 

I just don't get the feeling he'll be signing in Canada, I figure he goes south to play for an American team. Now, I don't have anything to base that feeling on besides his being an American who's played into two top tier American markets (NYR being the hockey market, Tampa being the competitive team based in Florida), but that's just my personal speculation. 

 

 

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Coconuts said:

He would be a good fit imo, and with Quick expiring essentially eating up any raise they'd still have flex when Kopitar's deal expired the following season. Maybe Kopitar re-signs, but probably not for 10M. 

 

Ehhh, the divisional rival bit doesn't bother me much, I get it but I think people get too hung up on it sometimes. Yes, we give up a good piece, but if the whole idea is getting good pieces back does it really matter all that much? It's not as if not trading with them is going to stop them from working to improve their team anyway, you make moves that benefit your team. 

 

I'd be bullish on Clarke and the 1st, more flexible on the third piece. But it depends on what they're willing to give up instead. 

 

I actually would want Clarke and Vilardi over Clarke and the pick. I think Vilardi has potential to be the right shot 3C we've been missing since Sutter had that one good year and he's got good size too, and the development time already put in. To me thats much more valuable than the 1st. 

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, JM_ said:

 

I actually would want Clarke and Vilardi over Clarke and the pick. I think Vilardi has potential to be the right shot 3C we've been missing since Sutter had that one good year and he's got good size too, and the development time already put in. To me thats much more valuable than the 1st. 

If we can get Clarke and Vilardi for Miller that's a must do trade.  I doubt we get that kind of return though.

[Coconuts]

5 minutes ago, JM_ said:

 

I actually would want Clarke and Vilardi over Clarke and the pick. I think Vilardi has potential to be the right shot 3C we've been missing since Sutter had that one good year and he's got good size too, and the development time already put in. To me thats much more valuable than the 1st. 

You'd take Vilardi over being able to grab our own player? I gotta say, he's probably someone they'd be more likely to move over Turcotte imo. 

 

I get your argument for players who are further ahead than whoever we'd be able to pick, I just like the idea of being able to use a 1st on a D prospect. Guess it depends on who's projected to be where? 

[Fanuck]

10 minutes ago, JM_ said:

 

I actually would want Clarke and Vilardi over Clarke and the pick. I think Vilardi has potential to be the right shot 3C we've been missing since Sutter had that one good year and he's got good size too, and the development time already put in. To me thats much more valuable than the 1st. 

 

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

You'd take Vilardi over being able to grab our own player? I gotta say, he's probably someone they'd be more likely to move over Turcotte imo. 

 

I get your argument for players who are further ahead than whoever we'd be able to pick, I just like the idea of being able to use a 1st on a D prospect. Guess it depends on who's projected to be where? 

Acquiring a guy like Vilardi needs consideration.  He's an RFA and we no longer would benefit from any ELC years which in today's NHL economy is like gold.  I could see our previous regime being all over an already-developed player ready to step right into the line-up next year, but I'm not so sure JR/Allvin prefer that route.  They've both spoken at length about specific team needs and the barren prospect pool in the organization.  JR has expressed a desire to acquire additional picks as well.  If Miller is traded I don't see the package not including pick(s) of some kind as well as a young roster player on ELC or not yet in the pro's.  

 

In a post I made a while ago which coco outright stole from me in his proposal ( - relax, I'm kidding, sort of) I suggested Miller for Clarke and this years 2nd.  If that doesn't move the needle for JR/Allvin I'd do the same package but try to get LA to include either Helenius or Pinelli to fit our young C prospect organizational need. 

[JM_]

12 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

You'd take Vilardi over being able to grab our own player? I gotta say, he's probably someone they'd be more likely to move over Turcotte imo. 

 

I get your argument for players who are further ahead than whoever we'd be able to pick, I just like the idea of being able to use a 1st on a D prospect. Guess it depends on who's projected to be where? 

right shot C's with good size are hard to find too. Its all a risk, but given the Canucks ability to comb over Vilardi's development, I'd be more than happy if they valued that over the risk of our own pick.

[JM_]

15 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If we can get Clarke and Vilardi for Miller that's a must do trade.  I doubt we get that kind of return though.

you never know, they do have other C's coming up their development pipeline. And we are still taking a risk on Clarke.