[VAN/TBL] Cond. 1st ('20 / '21) Plus for J.T. Miller || Part 2

[VanJack]

Who on this board would trade miller for a first and third?

The answer is probably 'nobody'....particularly since we now know that the first rounder will be no higher than 17-18th overall in the 2020 draft.

 

[Fatass]

The answer is probably 'nobody'....particularly since we now know that the first rounder will be no higher than 17-18th overall in the 2020 draft.

Is there currently a bottom 10 team (in its rebuilding cycle) that would trade their 2020 or 2021 first to us for Miller? Not a chance. Teams in their rebuilding cycle don’t trade away firsts for a player who’s contract will be over (and he will be gone) when the team is ready to compete for a top 8 spot in the league.
The timing of this trade (and the Tofoli trade) were too soon. These are trades made with total disregard for the team’s future.

 

[tyhee]

Who on this board would trade miller for a first and third?

I'd try to get more, but if that was the best offer, of course I'd deal Miller to get back approximately what the Canucks gave up for him (and would would of course love to trade Toffoli even for less than the Canucks paid for him, as unlikely as it may be that anyone would pay it.)

Trading prime players making something in the range of what they're worth lowers the team's cap now for a few years and getting back those picks brings the possibility of useful cheap players on entry level contracts when Hughes and Pettersson are in their primes getting paid gazillions on their next contracts.

Given the current state of the team including total salaries compared with the salary cap, it would be crazy not to trade Miller for what they gave up for him. Is there anyone out there that really believes that the Canucks of next season will include each and every one of Toffoli, Markstrom and Tanev? Assuming they won't all be back, is there really a good chance that the Canucks can be better than a bubble team, even with Miller? If they can't be better than on (or imo below) the bubble, then why not plan for 3-4 years from now?

 

[ChilliBilly]

Being bubble team does not mean you can't become a contender. This idea that you go from junk bottom five team straight to contender the next year is ridiculous; vast majority of teams become a bubble team before being a contender, in fact with all the parity, a lot of teams bounce from top of the league to bubble team, to missing the playoffs.

I'm sorry did you read what I posted? What you partially said was what I intended. We have been a bottom team for years, JTM was not going to make us a contender. EP and QH may have. Not one trade or FA signing by JB has actually made us a significantly better team.

 

[Peter10]

The answer is probably 'nobody'....particularly since we now know that the first rounder will be no higher than 17-18th overall in the 2020 draft.

Do we really? What happens with the play-ins? The teams that loose there may be treated like having not made the playoffs or they might be seeded between 8 and 15. What if it is the #8 pick we are trading?

 

[VanJack]

You have to factor in the 'cap considerations', not just the draft picks.

You could argue that Miller is no worse than the 'third best' player on the Canucks....and he's on a cost-controlled contract of $5.25m for the next three seasons after this one.

For a team as capped out as the Canucks, this is serious 'plus' in terms of assessing the Miller trade....one of the few 'value contracts' this team has on its entire roster.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Who on this board would trade miller for a first and third?

Who on this board would trade Olli Juolevi for Matthew Tkachuk? Probably everybody. Not sure what point you’re trying to make, other than you either are unable to or refuse to comprehend why people had a problem with what we gave up.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This team will be a bubble team until the bottom six and defensive depth is addressed. Until then when good trades, good draft selections, and good UFA signings occur they're going to be applauded despite the actual issues of the team mitigating the impact of those good moves.

Like if Quinn Hughes has a 15 year career with the Canucks and all those years the Canucks are a bubble team does that make him a bad pick? They selected him to help the team become a contender, correct? Same with Miller, they traded for him to help the team and he exceeded what was expected of him.

If the leafs for the duration of the Tavaras contract have nothing but first round exits does it make it a bad signing?

If the NJD trade the 17th overall pick for Landeskog and he goes on to play with Hughes and puts up 70 plus points but the devils are a bubble team for the next 5 years due to their d-core. Was trading a mid first for Landeskog the wrong move?

The last question is a bit odd because NJD is in a rebuild and Landeskog is worth more than the 17th overall pick, so...? The timing is poor, but the value is good. I would probably say trade for him and then immediately flip him for value, similar to what they did with Hall.

Let's tweak this: If NJD were to instead trade their 6th overall pick for Landeskog right now, would you consider it a good move? Before you answer, please realize the following:
1. NJD is 26th in overall P% for the sum of the last 4 years.
2. They have essentially this core: Hughes, Hischier, Subban, Blackwood and maybe Smith.
3. Landeskog has one more year on contract at $5.6m AAV.
4. Landeskog is better than Miller.
5. NJD was the 6th worst team in the league this year.

On the Leafs with Tavares: No, it would not make it a bad signing. Why? Because they signed a player with an elite resume to team with a great young core after said team posted 49 and 40 win seasons _without_ him. That is a logical move to make given that context.

On your Canucks rationale: Every GM tries to improve their team. This kind of rationale can justify any move. If a GM makes a bad move, well, he was trying to improve the team. Do you see?

The point I was trying to make with your Pettersson clone addition is that if the fortunes do not significantly shift with that level of supreme talent, why would anyone in their right mind expect things to shift with a far lesser player in Miller? Doesn't make sense. 4 times out of 5, a similar move gets executed and it completely blows up in the GM's face. Everything aligns here instead, Miller has a career year, and suddenly people are championing low probability moves? This is illogial Knight53.

I don't begrudge you for liking Miller. As a template, he is exactly the type of player I used to overvalue a long time ago. In turn, the Canucks are about to mitigate what could have been a disastrous trade and that's good luck. It benefits the franchise, so I'm relieved there. But I was astonished at how stupid and selfish I thought this trade was at the time. Even Nonis refused to jeopardize the future before being fired. Benning? No such compunction.

Anyway, I'm eager to get your answer on the NJD question above. I think that will allow me to better understand your position.

 

[Javaman]

Geez, can we stop overvaluing draft picks; to think that JT Miller is only worth 18th overall pick is insane; he'd easily garner a top 10 pick.

Here's an interesting new article that further confirms that many people grossly overvalue draft picks.

Prospect dragons: Contextualizing NHL draft pick values

Interesting article, especially the summary and takeaways at the end of it.

These two points in particular stood out to me:

1. Bad teams should be hoarding early draft picks
2. Good teams shouldn't hesitate to trade 1st round picks as long as they can recoup picks later in the draft.

At the time of the trade, the Canucks were a bad team that was drafting in the top 10 for the fifth time in six years.

*Edited for clarity*

 

[Hockeyphysio]

If the canucks are "playing in" for the playoffs, does that mean if we loose we keep our first rounder?

 

[Nico Hischier]

Yo I would be mad as hell if we traded 6oa for 1 year of Landeskog

 

[vancityluongo]

If there was a team on the clear downswing (SJ, Anaheim, LA, Chicago), or a team just not there yet (Buffalo, Ottawa, Detroit) yeah I'd entertain trading Miller for their 1st. Would take a top-5 pick in this draft for Miller for sure. And that's based on his season this year - if he was the player he was at the time we traded for him, I'd trade him now to teams like Calgary or NYI that could very easily be in the lottery next year with some shitty injury luck.

That said, even a lottery pick (like all draft picks) is inherently risky, so while that trade would make directional, strategic "sense", it's not likely to turn out well. Even a top-3 pick probably doesn't offer the same value on an NHL roster as Miller would for Pettersson and Hughes' prime. I'm only talking about the draft pick as currency; it also doesn't make a huge amount of sense (now with Hughes being what he is, on an ELC) to trade a high end first liner for a hope and prayer.

On the other hand, trading Miller for a young, stud defenseman like Dunn, Ekblad (?) or Pesce would be f***ing awesome. It would be a double arbitrage move where you correctly identify an undervalued player (Miller), and then flip him for another similar value player that offers a strategic fit. I'd give Jim Benning huge props if he did that.

Edit: @Bleach Clean, the last part is something I've thought of since we had our conversation on this topic a few months back. Extracting value is a good thing in an absolute sense. If it doesn't make directional sense, you can even give up some value to make it align. Idk if Miller for Pesce for example is a good one for one trade (Carolina might be getting more value), but we'd be pretty pleased if Benning had traded a 2020 1st for Brett Pesce at the 2019 draft. No?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Yo I would be mad as hell if we traded 6oa for 1 year of Landeskog

What about for 4 years of Landeskog?

 

[Knight53]

The last question is a bit odd because NJD is in a rebuild and Landeskog is worth more than the 17th overall pick, so...? The timing is poor, but the value is good.

Pretty much. The move may or may not have been to early to make but when you end up with an asset and value that phenomenal in a trade its really hard to look back.

Let's tweak this: If NJD were to instead trade their 6th overall pick for Landeskog right now, would you consider it a good move?

The Canucks gave up a mid first. So it would be the 17th pick for Landeskog which is robbery for NJD. Regardless of timeline of the team you make that trade because the win valuewise is so large.

In turn, the Canucks are about to mitigate what could have been a disastrous trade and that's good luck. It benefits the franchise, so I'm relieved there. But I was astonished at how stupid and selfish I thought this trade was at the time. Even Nonis refused to jeopardize the future before being fired. Benning? No such compunction.

Yes I too am relieved the trade didn't turn into a disaster and ended up instead with us getting a prime aged top line winger.

 

[Nico Hischier]

What about for 4 years of Landeskog?

I would trade coyotes first for 4 years of Landeskog

 

[Bleach Clean]

I would trade coyotes first for 4 years of Landeskog

Understandable given 3 picks in the top17 this year. How about next year's 1st, unprotected, for Jason Zucker?

NJD can stock pile with their three 1sts this year, and then go all in for next year.

Pretty much. The move may or may not have been to early to make but when you end up with an asset and value that phenomenal in a trade its really hard to look back.

The Canucks gave up a mid first. So it would be the 17th pick for Landeskog which is robbery for NJD. Regardless of timeline of the team you make that trade because the win valuewise is so large.

Yes I too am relieved the trade didn't turn into a disaster and ended up instead with us getting a prime aged top line winger.

Appreciate the response. From this, it seems you are quantifying the deal for Miller as being: Miller for the 15th pick + 3rd rndr throughout. Although that is what VAN will end up paying, at the time of trade, this was not the valuation of the 1st rounder. At that time, the 1st rndr was potentially unprotected, was variable, and was coming from a 4 year bottom feeder. Tampa traded for that variance. That variance had value to them. However, that variance is not present in your Landeskog example.

The Canucks will end up giving up a mid-1st, yes, but few suspected that it would have been a mid-1st in the offseason. This is what warps the discussion. From this point forward, most will judge it as being Miller for a mid-first because that is _now_ the locked in cost. However, the initial probability that was most likely to occur has been removed from that assertion. And so, the conclusion is then warped too as a byproduct.

It's like 9 lesser age gap trades going wrong, then the 1oth one hits. Does that then justify age gap as a strategy? No, of course not, but I don't doubt that many will see it this way.

 

[Bleach Clean]

If there was a team on the clear downswing (SJ, Anaheim, LA, Chicago), or a team just not there yet (Buffalo, Ottawa, Detroit) yeah I'd entertain trading Miller for their 1st. Would take a top-5 pick in this draft for Miller for sure. And that's based on his season this year - if he was the player he was at the time we traded for him, I'd trade him now to teams like Calgary or NYI that could very easily be in the lottery next year with some shitty injury luck.

That said, even a lottery pick (like all draft picks) is inherently risky, so while that trade would make directional, strategic "sense", it's not likely to turn out well. Even a top-3 pick probably doesn't offer the same value on an NHL roster as Miller would for Pettersson and Hughes' prime. I'm only talking about the draft pick as currency; it also doesn't make a huge amount of sense (now with Hughes being what he is, on an ELC) to trade a high end first liner for a hope and prayer.

On the other hand, trading Miller for a young, stud defenseman like Dunn, Ekblad (?) or Pesce would be f***ing awesome. It would be a double arbitrage move where you correctly identify an undervalued player (Miller), and then flip him for another similar value player that offers a strategic fit. I'd give Jim Benning huge props if he did that.

Edit: @Bleach Clean, the last part is something I've thought of since we had our conversation on this topic a few months back. Extracting value is a good thing in an absolute sense. If it doesn't make directional sense, you can even give up some value to make it align. Idk if Miller for Pesce for example is a good one for one trade (Carolina might be getting more value), but we'd be pretty pleased if Benning had traded a 2020 1st for Brett Pesce at the 2019 draft. No?

Considering where they were at the end of 2019, with the information we had at the time, trading that pick would not have made sense. Hughes was not on the roster. Pettersson faded down the stretch. The core was thin and the 4 year record had been poor. And so, worrying about an NHL player's impact on a roster for Pettersson's prime seemed entirely gratuitous.

Now, they're in a precarious position. They signed Myers to a big deal, scorched more future earth to rent Toffoli, and are in a cap bind. Benning is also deep into his tenure (3rd longest serving Canucks GM, I believe). They aren't trading Miller.

I think when we speak of lottery picks offering directional, strategic sense, the conversation starts and stops with the direction. With your comparison of top3 pick vs. 3 years of Miller, you are trying to weigh each option amidst a confused path. On one path, you have the improvement of the current team, and on the other hand, the push for greater gains over the long-term. It's only the direction they have chosen that is confusing the issue. This was, up until this year, a poor team. The focus of a poor team should be to rebuild. That then prioritizes which asset (top3 pick or Miller) is more important.

Well that's where a lot of the negative views of the trade come from. It was a desperation move to save his job. Miller is a great player no doubt but the team was not in the position where they were a Miller away from contending. They were evidently a Miller away from being a bubble team.

Now we're going into a draft not picking until the 3rd round. A team that's suffocated by bad contracts won't have the best two shots at picking up some good young cost controlled talent for the future.

It took Miller, Hughes, Myers, 11 players with career totals, injury luck, a top4 PP and stellar Markstrom to get them from 22nd to 15th... And they were still sinking before C19 hit.

I don't think Miller alone constitutes the 7 rank shift, nor am I reasonably assured that it will be a stable 7 rank shift moving forward.

 

[vancityluongo]

Considering where they were at the end of 2019, with the information we had at the time, trading that pick would not have made sense. Hughes was not on the roster. Pettersson faded down the stretch. The core was thin and the 4 year record had been poor. And so, worrying about an NHL player's impact on a roster for Pettersson's prime seemed entirely gratuitous.

Now, they're in a precarious position. They signed Myers to a big deal, scorched more future earth to rent Toffoli, and are in a cap bind. Benning is also deep into his tenure (3rd longest serving Canucks GM, I believe). They aren't trading Miller.

I think when we speak of lottery picks offering directional, strategic sense, the conversation starts and stops with the direction. With your comparison of top3 pick vs. 3 years of Miller, you are trying to weigh each option amidst a confused path. On one path, you have the improvement of the current team, and on the other hand, the push for greater gains over the long-term. It's only the direction they have chosen that is confusing the issue. This was, up until this year, a poor team. The focus of a poor team should be to rebuild. That then prioritizes which asset (top3 pick or Miller) is more important.

I think you completely misread or misunderstood what I wrote.

In June 2019, I would have been happy to trade JT Miller from the Canucks to one of those other teams for a first round pick, moments after Benning made the trade to acquire him from Tampa. At the time I believed Miller's value to be lower than that. Given his season, I certainly don't, but would still consider moving him today for a guaranteed top-5 pick.

Not because that first round pick is going to be some slam dunk asset, but because it could subsequently be moved for something else of value that provides a better strategic fit. Of course, Miller could just be moved for that asset directly, but the conversation around Miller has involved the hypothetical swap of a draft pick, given the original trade. More on that later.
_____________

Think of the original trade like this. I offer you an older car (unknown value) in exchange for your brand new bike (a $2,500 value). But you already have two vehicles, with no need for a third. And this is a very expensive, customized, top of the line bike; you've started biking to work a lot, you recently considered getting rid of one of your existing vehicles due to rising insurance costs or whatever, and you just moved to a neighbourhood with minimal roadway accessibility and terrific bike lane infrastructure.

Directionally for your life, it makes zero sense to get rid of the bike for another vehicle. But the value proposition is tangible. And upon further inspection, you find out that the car actually runs quite well, and is at least a $5,000 value.

Would you take the car? You certainly should. You could instantly sell it (at $4,000 for example) and even pay a premium on the replacement bike ($3,000) while pocketing the $1,000 for your time and effort. You could also still sell one of your existing vehicles. Hell, you could any combination of your three vehicles depending on what offers you the highest value. When you assess the entire potential opportunity, it is a no-brainer. But if you're to just get bogged down by swapping a bike that you need for a vehicle you don't, it can be easy to get bogged down by this idea that you're giving up something you need for something you don't.
_____________

Back to the Canucks - they can absolutely trade Miller if they want. He has no trade protection. He is signed to a reasonable cap hit, with term. He had a terrific season where he was by many metrics one of the best wingers in the game. Despite all of that, if the Canucks believe that with Toffoli and Boeser they have their first line wingers, and Miller could be used as a trade chip to land that elusive first pair defenseman to go with Hughes, they should absolutely look into moving him. Or they could move Boeser for that piece. There is a very liquid market for these players. They're not trying to move Loui Eriksson here.

I think we are too focused on "direction" and the consistent execution of some sort of cohesive strategy. An NHL team isn't a blank canvas. There are way too many factors at play to not switch directions many times and re-calculate. Maybe Benning wouldn't have done the Miller trade had he known that Tyler Toffoli would be available months later, and would have instead used that valuable first rounder as a trade chip for a defenseman. Maybe he moves Madden for that player if Boeser hadn't been injured. And so on.

We're both acknowledging that with the emergence of Hughes, things changed. Benning doubled down on this new "playoffs" direction even before that with the Myers signing, and again with the Toffoli trade. Any move made right now should be assessed in a wholly different way from a directional perspective than when the Miller trade originally took place. And of course, Miller's play added to that. This is currently a playoff bubble team, for better or worse. So when anyone says "lol, no one would trade Miller back for a 17th overall pick" that is a strawman.

Of course, no one would do that now. But no one should be proposing that. A much more relevant question is "should we trade Miller for a 22 year old defenseman who could be a better fit with Hughes and Pettersson than a 27 year old winger" - given where the team is, that is a reasonable option. And if that's not one the team takes, it should be criticized if/when there is a situation in the future where Miller's play declines or the team has an untimely playoff exit because of a terrible d-corps.

 

[Fatass]

I think you completely misread or misunderstood what I wrote.

In June 2019, I would have been happy to trade JT Miller from the Canucks to one of those other teams for a first round pick, moments after Benning made the trade to acquire him from Tampa. At the time I believed Miller's value to be lower than that. Given his season, I certainly don't, but would still consider moving him today for a guaranteed top-5 pick.

Not because that first round pick is going to be some slam dunk asset, but because it could subsequently be moved for something else of value that provides a better strategic fit. Of course, Miller could just be moved for that asset directly, but the conversation around Miller has involved the hypothetical swap of a draft pick, given the original trade. More on that later.
_____________

Think of the original trade like this. I offer you an older car (unknown value) in exchange for your brand new bike (a $2,500 value). But you already have two vehicles, with no need for a third. And this is a very expensive, customized, top of the line bike; you've started biking to work a lot, you recently considered getting rid of one of your existing vehicles due to rising insurance costs or whatever, and you just moved to a neighbourhood with minimal roadway accessibility and terrific bike lane infrastructure.

Directionally for your life, it makes zero sense to get rid of the bike for another vehicle. But the value proposition is tangible. And upon further inspection, you find out that the car actually runs quite well, and is at least a $5,000 value.

Would you take the car? You certainly should. You could instantly sell it (at $4,000 for example) and even pay a premium on the replacement bike ($3,000) while pocketing the $1,000 for your time and effort. You could also still sell one of your existing vehicles. Hell, you could any combination of your three vehicles depending on what offers you the highest value. When you assess the entire potential opportunity, it is a no-brainer. But if you're to just get bogged down by swapping a bike that you need for a vehicle you don't, it can be easy to get bogged down by this idea that you're giving up something you need for something you don't.
_____________

Back to the Canucks - they can absolutely trade Miller if they want. He has no trade protection. He is signed to a reasonable cap hit, with term. He had a terrific season where he was by many metrics one of the best wingers in the game. Despite all of that, if the Canucks believe that with Toffoli and Boeser they have their first line wingers, and Miller could be used as a trade chip to land that elusive first pair defenseman to go with Hughes, they should absolutely look into moving him. Or they could move Boeser for that piece. There is a very liquid market for these players. They're not trying to move Loui Eriksson here.

I think we are too focused on "direction" and the consistent execution of some sort of cohesive strategy. An NHL team isn't a blank canvas. There are way too many factors at play to not switch directions many times and re-calculate. Maybe Benning wouldn't have done the Miller trade had he known that Tyler Toffoli would be available months later, and would have instead used that valuable first rounder as a trade chip for a defenseman. Maybe he moves Madden for that player if Boeser hadn't been injured. And so on.

We're both acknowledging that with the emergence of Hughes, things changed. Benning doubled down on this new "playoffs" direction even before that with the Myers signing, and again with the Toffoli trade. Any move made right now should be assessed in a wholly different way from a directional perspective than when the Miller trade originally took place. And of course, Miller's play added to that. This is currently a playoff bubble team, for better or worse. So when anyone says "lol, no one would trade Miller back for a 17th overall pick" that is a strawman.

Of course, no one would do that now. But no one should be proposing that. A much more relevant question is "should we trade Miller for a 22 year old defenseman who could be a better fit with Hughes and Pettersson than a 27 year old winger" - given where the team is, that is a reasonable option. And if that's not one the team takes, it should be criticized if/when there is a situation in the future where Miller's play declines or the team has an untimely playoff exit because of a terrible d-corps.

Agreed. The Miller trade was a stupid move by Benning/Wisebrod.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I think you completely misread or misunderstood what I wrote.

In June 2019, I would have been happy to trade JT Miller from the Canucks to one of those other teams for a first round pick, moments after Benning made the trade to acquire him from Tampa. At the time I believed Miller's value to be lower than that. Given his season, I certainly don't, but would still consider moving him today for a guaranteed top-5 pick.

Not because that first round pick is going to be some slam dunk asset, but because it could subsequently be moved for something else of value that provides a better strategic fit. Of course, Miller could just be moved for that asset directly, but the conversation around Miller has involved the hypothetical swap of a draft pick, given the original trade. More on that later.
_____________

Think of the original trade like this. I offer you an older car (unknown value) in exchange for your brand new bike (a $2,500 value). But you already have two vehicles, with no need for a third. And this is a very expensive, customized, top of the line bike; you've started biking to work a lot, you recently considered getting rid of one of your existing vehicles due to rising insurance costs or whatever, and you just moved to a neighbourhood with minimal roadway accessibility and terrific bike lane infrastructure.

Directionally for your life, it makes zero sense to get rid of the bike for another vehicle. But the value proposition is tangible. And upon further inspection, you find out that the car actually runs quite well, and is at least a $5,000 value.

Would you take the car? You certainly should. You could instantly sell it (at $4,000 for example) and even pay a premium on the replacement bike ($3,000) while pocketing the $1,000 for your time and effort. You could also still sell one of your existing vehicles. Hell, you could any combination of your three vehicles depending on what offers you the highest value. When you assess the entire potential opportunity, it is a no-brainer. But if you're to just get bogged down by swapping a bike that you need for a vehicle you don't, it can be easy to get bogged down by this idea that you're giving up something you need for something you don't.
_____________

Back to the Canucks - they can absolutely trade Miller if they want. He has no trade protection. He is signed to a reasonable cap hit, with term. He had a terrific season where he was by many metrics one of the best wingers in the game. Despite all of that, if the Canucks believe that with Toffoli and Boeser they have their first line wingers, and Miller could be used as a trade chip to land that elusive first pair defenseman to go with Hughes, they should absolutely look into moving him. Or they could move Boeser for that piece. There is a very liquid market for these players. They're not trying to move Loui Eriksson here.

I think we are too focused on "direction" and the consistent execution of some sort of cohesive strategy. An NHL team isn't a blank canvas. There are way too many factors at play to not switch directions many times and re-calculate. Maybe Benning wouldn't have done the Miller trade had he known that Tyler Toffoli would be available months later, and would have instead used that valuable first rounder as a trade chip for a defenseman. Maybe he moves Madden for that player if Boeser hadn't been injured. And so on.

We're both acknowledging that with the emergence of Hughes, things changed. Benning doubled down on this new "playoffs" direction even before that with the Myers signing, and again with the Toffoli trade. Any move made right now should be assessed in a wholly different way from a directional perspective than when the Miller trade originally took place. And of course, Miller's play added to that. This is currently a playoff bubble team, for better or worse. So when anyone says "lol, no one would trade Miller back for a 17th overall pick" that is a strawman.

Of course, no one would do that now. But no one should be proposing that. A much more relevant question is "should we trade Miller for a 22 year old defenseman who could be a better fit with Hughes and Pettersson than a 27 year old winger" - given where the team is, that is a reasonable option. And if that's not one the team takes, it should be criticized if/when there is a situation in the future where Miller's play declines or the team has an untimely playoff exit because of a terrible d-corps.

Nice analogy, and I agree with the general premise despite not making that clear. If a rebuilding team is offered an asset too good to pass up, by all means, do the trade and recoup value later on in another trade. The key premise being that value over and above your pick is being offered. The asset is not ideal for your direction, but the value is too good to pass up.

The point you had made about immediately flipping Miller to OTT, BUF, DET etc... is a salient one. It's probable that this yields a better return than the swing pick they gave up to Tampa, and so it works.

I would move Miller right now for a guaranteed top9 pick, similar to the Schneider deal, even after his career year. This high is set to be short lived and I suspect that such a pick would help the franchise more in the long-run (though no guarantee, I agree). Re-purposing Miller to a younger dman does not, IMO, provide for the same potential impact.

VL, you may be inferring too much about the team based upon recent play, and that to the positive. This is a 1 year bubble team with a host of factors breaking right. Their P% belies their shooting differentials and they were falling before C19 hit.

As well, switching directions and re-calculating many times is how you end up here: in purgatory. A GM needs to instead understand value propositions within an overarching mode. One mode, not multiple. For example, Doug Wilson trading Toskola for a 1st, then trading that 1st (Eller)++ for the Couture pick in 2007. All amidst a 51 win season, with the intention to continually competing for the cup. His direction never changed. He could have trade Toskola for a roster piece to improve his current team. He did not because he knew that the value in trading for futures would provide for a larger future impact and the elongation of SJ's competitive window.

 

[I am toxic]

Considering where they were at the end of 2019, with the information we had at the time, trading that pick would not have made sense. Hughes was not on the roster. Pettersson faded down the stretch. The core was thin and the 4 year record had been poor. And so, worrying about an NHL player's impact on a roster for Pettersson's prime seemed entirely gratuitous.

Now, they're in a precarious position. They signed Myers to a big deal, scorched more future earth to rent Toffoli, and are in a cap bind. Benning is also deep into his tenure (3rd longest serving Canucks GM, I believe). They aren't trading Miller.

I think when we speak of lottery picks offering directional, strategic sense, the conversation starts and stops with the direction. With your comparison of top3 pick vs. 3 years of Miller, you are trying to weigh each option amidst a confused path. On one path, you have the improvement of the current team, and on the other hand, the push for greater gains over the long-term. It's only the direction they have chosen that is confusing the issue. This was, up until this year, a poor team. The focus of a poor team should be to rebuild. That then prioritizes which asset (top3 pick or Miller) is more important.





It took Miller, Hughes, Myers, 11 players with career totals, injury luck, a top4 PP and stellar Markstrom to get them from 22nd to 15th... And they were still sinking before C19 hit.

I don't think Miller alone constitutes the 7 rank shift, nor am I reasonably assured that it will be a 7 a stable 7 rank shift moving forward.

Well said.

Re the bolded, we saw when Marky went down that even Miller is unable to drag this team into playoffs.

Marky is pretty much why this team went from 22 to 15.

 

[Blue and Green]

Well said.

Re the bolded, we saw when Marky went down that even Miller is unable to drag this team into playoffs.

Marky is pretty much why this team went from 22 to 15.

Markstrom played very well last season, too. They went from 22 to 15 because of the additions of Miller and Hughes.

 

[Hit the post]

Markstrom played very well last season, too. They went from 22 to 15 because of the additions of Miller and Hughes.

And the subtraction of that big stiff on defense.

 

[I am toxic]

Markstrom played very well last season, too. They went from 22 to 15 because of the additions of Miller and Hughes.

Marky took off part way through the 18-19 season. He didn't start the season at the same level.

Even with Hughes and Miller healthy, without Marky the Canucks were sinking out of a playoff spot.

 

[Blue and Green]

Marky took off part way through the 18-19 season. He didn't start the season at the same level.

Even with Hughes and Miller healthy, without Marky the Canucks were sinking out of a playoff spot.

Last season Markstrom played well in every month except November. This season, with the injury and the personal absence taking him out for three weeks, plus a soft couple of weeks in December, he didn't really make substantially greater difference on the whole.

The Canucks were 25th in goals scored last season, 8th this season. That was the difference. Two players were quite obviously responsible for a substantial amount of that improvement.