Friedman: Miller extension unlikely with Canucks, timeline doesnt fit, and trade offers are going to be too good to pass up
- Thread starter UrbanImpact
- Start date
I think Minny would be all over it if they are looking to compete for next year while having so much dead cap weight.
Getting point producing players with low AAV is probably at the top of their list.
They can even send Van back a cap dump if needed.
Hunter368
RIP lomiller1, see you in the next life buddy.
- Nov 8, 2011
- 27,072
- 23,774
Not sure how many teams could afford his new contract cap hit and even fewer teams could also afford the asking piece via trade. Jets could afford his new cap hit, assuming that Mark was traded, plus maybe Dillon........but Jets can't afford the largely futures based ask as a return on him. Can't see the Jets being interested in him due to the ask as the return.
Minnesota has no bad cap. Guerin won't give up 1st round picks, or prospects for rentals, that has been made clear. There's a reason Guerin stopped showing interest. Canucks fans we get it, but certain teams like Minnesota isn't paying for rentals
Minnesota can neither extend Miller nor improve on the roster they lost in the 1st round with this year. He'd be a great fit, but contract wise it's a dead end.
- Aug 24, 2011
- 27,616
- 12,090
Hockey Gamer
Registered User
- Mar 2, 2015
- 457
- 432
i'm not sure who on the Rangers' side would want this. The time for that trade was this past deadline. Rangers set their offer, then when Vancouver opted to hold onto him, they went after more cost appropriate pieces. It becomes even less likely for the Rangers do this trade with those particular pieces now because Schneider and Chytil are both becoming roster players. Teams that historically splurge for an expiring veteran, end up trading assets/futures. They rarely deal a player off of their roster, let alone two. Those two players are now young staples to the team that they want to compete with. This trade makes very little sense now. I also see that you added the cost for Miller up to four pieces, instead of the original three pieces, yet Miller has less of a playoff run on his contract. This is pure wishful thinking on the Canucks fan, but please keep fantasizing.
It just makes sense, Im just a neutral fan commentating on an appropriate trade
Maybe it's an even bigger deal where it's something like
Miller+ Garland
for Nylander+ another player
Maybe Vancouver Swaps 2 wingers for 1 winger in Nylander and another player
I'm not going to suggest who that other player is because I don't know what Vancouver needs.
But I do know that at last years deadline, before Garland's summer trade to Vancouver Dubas had conversations with Arizona about Garland.
maybe he tries to land both Miller and Garland
who knows all I know for sure is I expect changes because Dubas has 1 year remaining on his deal and Matthews can sign an extension in a year.
this is a BIG summer for the franchise
VIPettersson
Registered User
- Apr 9, 2018
- 610
- 573
It would be cool to send Miller to a contender and potentially pick him back up at a discount later in his career on a retained deal. I feel like if Miller is traded, we still haven't seen the end of him in Vancouver.
Really sad to be losing this player but with the completely barren prospect pool, this is a move that needs to be made for the good of the future. The Canucks don't have the luxury (nor the space) to keep him around.
The gamble part is really overstated here. I don't think at this point his career high with NYR and Tampa really has any relevance as he's clearly a better player now and is playing a bigger role.
This past year may very well have been a career year but worst case you are probably getting a point per game player for at least the next few years and a guy who is capable of driving his own line.
The Canucks need defense and a play driving 3C. Swapping two top 6 forwards (one with 100 point capability and top end FO ability) for a ppg guy who's 3 years younger and the same age respectively (and only proven to be able to put up PPG) doesn't make much sense.
That 'other player' would have to be a pretty good defenseman for me to consider that kind of trade.
Bettman Returnz
Why so serious?
I’d be open to starting discussion around this… likely Canucks would want a pick/prospect too but Carlo would be of interest for sure.
Logistically, I agree. Every team below Vancouver will likely be in the same situation the Canucks are where Miller just does not make sense.
For Vegas and most of the playoff teams, Miller is either unaffordable or likely just a rental due to cap and roster situations.
LA is one of the very few teams that could re-sign him and make it work. Question is, should they?
If you think Miller puts you over the top and you can beat Colorado in the west in the next 2-3 years, then maybe Blake makes the move. If he feels Colorado will still likely be too strong to compete with, then I think patience and staying the course would be wise.
I'd be hard-pressed to do Garland+ for Nylander. He offers put team none of what we want or need, is more expensive and is only 3 years younger then Miller, and the same age as Garland, and both bring more to our team than Nylander.
Toronto doesn't have the assets we want, plain and simple.
Frankie Blueberries
Allergic to draft picks
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,245
- 10,762
Clarke straight up.
I know it’s a hefty price, but that’s the type of asset the Canucks need to get back in return for Miller.
Exactly. Vancouver’s D is a mess. If the team is trading Miller it’s for a youngish D with upside as the center piece. Nylander is a fine player but not what Vancouver needs.
Your proposed trade makes no sense for the Canucks, and a hell of a lot of sense for the Leafs.
Take out Garland and make the base Miller vs Nylander, and it's a lateral trade at best for the Canucks.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Valeri Nichushkin placed NHLPA assistance program stage 3
- Latest: Soul Assumption
