[Proposals] Roster moves, assuming JR extends JT Miller

[Ghostsof1915]

Just now, Alflives said:

And with Miller producing 99 points did we make the playoffs?  With Miller producing 99 points are we a Cup level team?

Benning left a mess.  We are over the cap, and aren’t in the playoffs.  It’s going to take time for JR’s group to “unravel” the Benning problems.  

Doesn't change the facts you are going to have to:

A) Replace that offence.

B> You will have to be better at bringing down your Goals against per game.

C) Or both.

 

You might have missed the point that "Benning's" team under BB if averaged over a whole season, the team would have made the playoffs.

(57 games, 32 wins, 15 losses, 10 OTL for a total of 74 points out of 114 possible points.

 

So the mess isn't has horrible as you think. Does it need work? Hell yes.

I'm not expecting radical change. I just expect improvement. And hopefully a team that is good enough to compete for a playoff spot.

[steviewonder20]

To break even we don't need to replace Miller’s 99 points; we can also accomplish the same thing by vastly improving our D and letting in fewer goals. Also, short-term pain for long-term gain is fine by me. After years of trying for instant gratification, I’m all for properly building a competitive team with a strong pipeline of prospects.

[Goal:thecup]

3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I don't honestly care what else they get back as long as there is a young RHD involved.

The new RHDs do not have to be young.

We can infill within all age parameters.

 

I don't think we are going to be able to get all the attributes we would wish in each man.

Plus, for this year at the very least, we have to be able to fit them under the cap, so they can't be too 'great'.

[Crabcakes]

3 hours ago, -DLC- said:

Except you overlook one very important fact:  trading Miller leaves another gaping hole, in that he's one of the driving forces on the team.

 

 

If you don't consider what the team is without Miller that's a huge oversight.

That's Hansen's argument.  We've gone over this and you know that I'm torn because I go back and forth.  What it comes down to is what would you rather have Miller or a RHD?

 

What has happened since our last go around is that Boeser has been signed so he's off the table.  

 

I don't see moving Horvat either so does ..... Garland + get us the RHD?

 

What's your alternative?

[Crabcakes]

3 hours ago, higgyfan said:

I have trouble discerning what Hansen said and what you may have added here.  Could you clarify?  Thx

Ya, I suppose the bolded part is mostly what I have added.  The bones of what Hansen said was that keeping Miller meant going with what we have right now which has a lower ceiling than trading Miller and filling the big hole on defense.

 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Doesn't change the facts you are going to have to:

A) Replace that offence.

B> You will have to be better at bringing down your Goals against per game.

C) Or both.

 

You might have missed the point that "Benning's" team under BB if averaged over a whole season, the team would have made the playoffs.

(57 games, 32 wins, 15 losses, 10 OTL for a total of 74 points out of 114 possible points.

 

So the mess isn't has horrible as you think. Does it need work? Hell yes.

I'm not expecting radical change. I just expect improvement. And hopefully a team that is good enough to compete for a playoff spot.

We fans all want our team to improve.  It’s the path that debatable.  Benning did leave a mess that JR said it’s going to take time to “unravel”.  So if it’s going to take 2 or more years to unravel the Benning mess, then is Miller a wise signing?  Will he still be a key core piece at 32?  Is any return for Miller going to be a key core piece in 2-3 years?  

What we don’t need is more of the Benning “no plan” where we are constantly giving up futures in hopes to just make the playoffs.  We need a plan that gets us to a Cup level team again.