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

[Fatass]

There were reports leading up to the draft that the Canucks wanted to make a big move in front of the home crowd. Seems like an Aquilini plan to me.

I heard (have no clue if this is fact or not) that Aquilini said something about how old his dad is, and he wanted to get the team winning now to insure his dad watches a winner before what eventually gets us all happens.

 

[Bleach Clean]

So now you’re claiming Benning was asleep on the job?

I thought he was referring to Tampa’s asking price while dealing a cap casualty/dump as the low end of their expected return. Which is the more amusing inference, I think.

 

[Knight53]

I mean I'd definitely take a 5th overall pick if someone offered it but that's hardly realistic.

Trading Horvat is one thing, but we don't even know that Miller's production is going to be PPG from here on out. I just don't see how what is likely a career season from him increases his value that much.

It's not what a team is willing to offer, it's what it would take to pry an elite asset like Miller from the team. If we use this draft to gauge his value he shouldn't be traded for anything less than a top 5 pick. His worth is double if not more than his original cost value.

 

[Knight53]

I wonder if Tampa is having 'buyer's remorse' about basically dumping Miller for cap considerations? A first rounder seemed like a decent return at the time from a lottery team like the Canucks.

But when Vancouver posted a winning record this season, the Bolts thought so little of the pick, they traded it to the Devils at the deadline.

Seems to me that in Miller, they might have picked the wrong contract to dump.

They definitely screwed up trading Miller and not other players like Palat or Killorn. Miscalculation on their part especially where they were as an organization. Lost out on what would be there 4th best forward right now.

 

[Bleach Clean]

They definitely screwed up trading Miller and not other players like Palat or Killorn. Miscalculation on their part especially where they were as an organization. Lost out on what would be there 4th best forward right now.

I'm not sure about this. In that environment, with those players, Miller was clearly a step behind Palat or Killorn. With that information in mind, he was the right player to move. Few questioned it.

Maybe this is clearer once Palat and/or Killorn are actually moved. Then we can see each player's performance in a new environment.

 

[Blue and Green]

They definitely screwed up trading Miller and not other players like Palat or Killorn. Miscalculation on their part especially where they were as an organization. Lost out on what would be there 4th best forward right now.

Palat and Killorn had full NTC's. The only well-paid Tampa forwards who didn't have full NTC's were Kucherov, Point, Gourde and Miller-- the first two weren't going to be traded so the choice was between Gourde and Miller.

 

[Knight53]

Palat and Killorn had full NTC's. The only well-paid Tampa forwards who didn't have full NTC's were Kucherov, Point, Gourde and Miller-- the first two weren't going to be traded so the choice was between Gourde and Miller.

Gourde would've been the correct choice to trade then. Unfortunate situation for them having those players with full NTC's.

 

[Fatass]

Palat and Killorn had full NTC's. The only well-paid Tampa forwards who didn't have full NTC's were Kucherov, Point, Gourde and Miller-- the first two weren't going to be traded so the choice was between Gourde and Miller.

Or even better, we keep our 2020 first (in a draft class experts see as extremely good) and draft another top 10 talent to go with Petey, Hughes, and Pods? Why trade away that first to become (big whoop) mediocre? In three more seasons, when our top young players (Petey, Hughes, Pods) are entering their best years, where will Miller be? Where would that top 10 pick be (providing Bracket is leading the draft, and not Benning/Wisebrod)?
The timing of the Miller trade was too soon.

 

[Blue and Green]

Or even better, we keep our 2020 first (in a draft class experts see as extremely good) and draft another top 10 talent to go with Petey, Hughes, and Pods? Why trade away that first to become (big whoop) mediocre? In three more seasons, when our top young players (Petey, Hughes, Pods) are entering their best years, where will Miller be? Where would that top 10 pick be (providing Bracket is leading the draft, and not Benning/Wisebrod)?
The timing of the Miller trade was too soon.

My previous post was clearly referring to Tampa's decision choices, not Vancouver's.

 

[Knight53]

I'm not sure about this. In that environment, with those players, Miller was clearly a step behind Palat or Killorn. With that information in mind, he was the right player to move. Few questioned it.

Maybe this is clearer once Palat and/or Killorn are actually moved. Then we can see each player's performance in a new environment.

Few questioned it because the majority thought TB won the trade. Miller was a PPG player when playing with their top players similar to how it is here in Vancouver now. The TB coach had him in the doghouse for some reason. If the choice was between Miller and Gourde on who whould be the cap causality they butchered it knowing what we know now. Maybe if Palat and Killorn didn't have full NTC's then it's a different story. It's a fascinating trade thats going to be talked about for a while.

 

[Fatass]

My previous post was clearly referring to Tampa's decision choices, not Vancouver's.

Okay, but what’s your answer? Considering our team’s best players’ ages, should Benning have even been talking to TBay? Seriously, in 3 more seasons where will Miller be? You think he will still be with us? I don’t. I think just when our young leaders are coming into their window for winning Miller will be gone, and we will go backwards, after only becoming mediocre. That’s why I asked your opinion about trading away (pretty certain to be without Miller) a top ten pick. The timing was too soon. What’s your take on that idea?

 

[Knight53]

Or even better, we keep our 2020 first (in a draft class experts see as extremely good) and draft another top 10 talent to go with Petey, Hughes, and Pods? Why trade away that first to become (big whoop) mediocre? In three more seasons, when our top young players (Petey, Hughes, Pods) are entering their best years, where will Miller be? Where would that top 10 pick be (providing Bracket is leading the draft, and not Benning/Wisebrod)?
The timing of the Miller trade was too soon.

There's about 25 "mediocre" teams in this league. Its all about do you have the correct pieces in the correct positions to be an elite team.

In three years where will Landeskog, Gaudreau, Schefiele, RNH, Huberdeau, and Rakell be? They're all the same age as Miller.

Players like Miller help you become an elite team. The horrendous bottom six, lack of quality defensive depth, and mismanagement of cap is what is making this team no different than 25 other teams.

 

[Lindgren]

There's about 25 "mediocre" teams in this league. Its all about do you have the correct pieces in the correct positions to be an elite team.

In three years where will Landeskog, Gaudreau, Schefiele, RNH, Huberdeau, and Rakell be? They're all the same age as Miller.

Players like Miller help you become an elite team. The horrendous bottom six, lack of quality defensive depth, and mismanagement of cap is what is making this team no different than 25 other teams.

All these things were true when the trade for Miller was made, and collectively they mean that through the duration of Miller's contract, if he stays in Vancouver (a big "if"), the Canucks will not be a contender. Miller will not help the Canucks become an elite team. He'll help them to continue to be a bubble team.

 

[Fatass]

There's about 25 "mediocre" teams in this league. Its all about do you have the correct pieces in the correct positions to be an elite team.

In three years where will Landeskog, Gaudreau, Schefiele, RNH, Huberdeau, and Rakell be? They're all the same age as Miller.

Players like Miller help you become an elite team. The horrendous bottom six, lack of quality defensive depth, and mismanagement of cap is what is making this team no different than 25 other teams.

Agreed, but keeping Miller for when our young stars are ready to move into that elite group of 7 top teams is needed too. And he won’t be here at that time, but that top 10 pick we gave up to get him will. Miller gets us (for the 3 years left of his contract) to mediocre. Then he’s gone. That top 10 pick could push us into the top 7 teams, and he’s locked in with us for another 5 years. Benning/Wisebrod gave up top 7 (in three seasons) for mediocre now (for three seasons). Terribly terrible trade you can add to the bad cap and D.

 

[Blue and Green]

Okay, but what’s your answer? Considering our team’s best players’ ages, should Benning have even been talking to TBay? Seriously, in 3 more seasons where will Miller be? You think he will still be with us? I don’t. I think just when our young leaders are coming into their window for winning Miller will be gone, and we will go backwards, after only becoming mediocre. That’s why I asked your opinion about trading away (pretty certain to be without Miller) a top ten pick. The timing was too soon. What’s your take on that idea?

I thought that under the circumstances it was basically a fair trade when it was made-- but I liked Miller more than many people here. There was also widespread feeling that Tampa's cap situation should've forced down the price more, but a week later equally cap-strapped Vegas got a 2nd plus a 5th for Colin Miller who wasn't, isn't and never will be close to J.T.'s calibre.

I have no problem with people saying that philosophically they would prefer to continue travelling the tank road and collecting 1st-round picks instead of trading one; it's a valid stance. That said, the Canucks traded for a 26-year-old with four more years on a very reasonable contract and without trade protection. If Miller was close to 30, I'd have been against the trade on the grounds that he would likely be a declining asset. As it stands, he's definitely worth more as an asset than he was 11 months ago and unless he suffers some horrible injury he should still have plenty of trade value two years from now if they want/need to move him.

 

[Knight53]

All these things were true when the trade for Miller was made, and collectively they mean that through the duration of Miller's contract, if he stays in Vancouver (a big "if"), the Canucks will not be a contender. Miller will not help the Canucks become an elite team. He'll help them to continue to be a bubble team.

I think they'll be a contender regardless like many other flawed teams with elite talent.

To become an elite team those things I mentioned need to be addressed but in the meantime moves that ended up adding players like Miller should always be welcomed.

 

[Knight53]

Agreed, but keeping Miller for when our young stars are ready to move into that elite group of 7 top teams is needed too. And he won’t be here at that time, but that top 10 pick we gave up to get him will. Miller gets us (for the 3 years left of his contract) to mediocre. Then he’s gone. That top 10 pick could push us into the top 7 teams, and he’s locked in with us for another 5 years. Benning/Wisebrod gave up top 7 (in three seasons) for mediocre now (for three seasons). Terribly terrible trade you can add to the bad cap and D.

With everything we know thinking they would continue to tank is unrealistic. Also, doubt they would be bad enough to draft top 10, more likely in the 12-16 range without big injuries. Benning was always going to try to make the playoffs his job depended on it. This time he actually traded for an impact player unlike his usual grabage targets. Like how can you complain, you trade Miller today you get double your original cost value.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I thought that under the circumstances it was basically a fair trade when it was made-- but I liked Miller more than many people here. There was also widespread feeling that Tampa's cap situation should've forced down the price more, but a week later equally cap-strapped Vegas got a 2nd plus a 5th for Colin Miller who wasn't, isn't and never will be close to J.T.'s calibre.

I have no problem with people saying that philosophically they would prefer to continue travelling the tank road and collecting 1st-round picks instead of trading one; it's a valid stance. That said, the Canucks traded for a 26-year-old with four more years on a very reasonable contract and without trade protection. If Miller was close to 30, I'd have been against the trade on the grounds that he would likely be a declining asset. As it stands, he's definitely worth more as an asset than he was 11 months ago and unless he suffers some horrible injury he should still have plenty of trade value two years from now if they want/need to move him.

What were the circumstances that had you evaluate this trade as fair when it was made? Please elaborate. Specifically, what did the team's record and underlying metrics mean in terms of dealing a potentially unprotected 1st rounder and what did you evaluate Miller to be as a player?

Further question: Do you think VAN could get a potentially unprotected 1st rounder from a multi-year bottom feeder two years from now?

With everything we know thinking they would continue to tank is unrealistic. Also, doubt they would be bad enough to draft top 10, more likely in the 12-16 range without big injuries. Benning was always going to try to make the playoffs his job depended on it. This time he actually traded for an impact player unlike his usual grabage targets. Like how can you complain, you trade Miller today you get double your original cost value.

No, you don't, because he will not be traded. It's a mistake to evaluate his exit value when he is not near to exiting. When it gets closer to that time, then we'll have a better idea. We will hear more about what is expected and what is being offered.

The best rank this team could muster without Miller was 22nd overall. In the last 4 years, they had the 30th overall record. This year, they were about to fall out of the playoffs before C19 hit. All despite having career years from 11 players, low relative injuries, a top10 PP, a top10 performance from Markstrom and some of the worst underlying metrics from a bubble team. Yet you doubt they would be bad enough to draft top10? It's only 2 to 6 spots outside of the upper end range you grant them...

I would encourage you to listen to Harman Dayal's radio hit on Rink Wide. He too has said that a lot of things broke right for the team this year. A lot of luck went their way. He also said to deal pick 15 if possible. He's not confident that the Canucks put a similar season up, or better, next year.

 

[vanuck]

It's not what a team is willing to offer, it's what it would take to pry an elite asset like Miller from the team. If we use this draft to gauge his value he shouldn't be traded for anything less than a top 5 pick. His worth is double if not more than his original cost value.

If he keeps this up for another season or two, yeah I could see his value rising that much. Are you saying you project him to be PPG from now on?

 

[Lindgren]

I think they'll be a contender regardless like many other flawed teams with elite talent.

To become an elite team those things I mentioned need to be addressed but in the meantime moves that ended up adding players like Miller should always be welcomed.

I disagree. If you're right about the team becoming a contender, then certainly adding Miller makes sense. But adding such a player shouldn't "always" be welcomed. It's unwelcome if it succeeds only in making a bad team mediocre, while acting as an obstacle to becoming a contender. That's what I think is happening here.

Time will show who is right. Above, I predicted that Miller will be traded by Benning's successor, before he completes his current contract. If I'm wrong, and the Canucks become a contender with Miller in the line-up, I'll salute you. (Not that you need my salute.)

 

[Knight53]

What were the circumstances that had you evaluate this trade as fair when it was made? Please elaborate. Specifically, what did the team's record and underlying metrics mean in terms of dealing a potentially unprotected 1st rounder and what did you evaluate Miller to be as a player?

Further question: Do you think VAN could get a potentially unprotected 1st rounder from a multi-year bottom feeder two years from now?





No, you don't, because he will not be traded. It's a mistake to evaluate his exit value when he is not near to exiting. When it gets closer to that time, then we'll have a better idea. We will hear more about what is expected and what is being offered.

The best rank this team could muster without Miller was 22nd overall. In the last 4 years, they had the 30th overall record. This year, they were about to fall out of the playoffs before C19 hit. All despite having career years from 11 players, low relative injuries, a top10 PP, a top10 performance from Markstrom and some of the worst underlying metrics from a bubble team. Yet you doubt they would be bad enough to draft top10? It's only 2 to 6 spots outside of the upper end range you grant them...

I would encourage you to listen to Harman Dayal's radio hit on Rink Wide. He too has said that a lot of things broke right for the team this year. A lot of luck went their way. He also said to deal pick 15 if possible. He's not confident that the Canucks put a similar season up, or better, next year.

I too would give up the pick this year and lock it in. Let the trade be a top line player for a mid first. Anything can happen next year. A big injury can sink the team.

Yea I doubt they would be picking top 10 this year without a big injury. I think benning makes trades to improve this team regardless with his job on the line. He hit the jackpot with the Miller trade but could have bombed another trade hypothetically had he not made the miller trade and thus picked in the top 10. Certainly possible.

 

[Knight53]

If he keeps this up for another season or two, yeah I could see his value rising that much. Are you saying you project him to be PPG from now on?

I see him being a 60-70 point player going forward with potential PPG seasons playing with EP/BB. You dont trade those players for nothing less than a massive package.

 

[Knight53]

I disagree. If you're right about the team becoming a contender, then certainly adding Miller makes sense. But adding such a player shouldn't "always" be welcomed. It's unwelcome if it succeeds only in making a bad team mediocre, while acting as an obstacle to becoming a contender. That's what I think is happening here.

Time will show who is right. Above, I predicted that Miller will be traded by Benning's successor, before he completes his current contract. If I'm wrong, and the Canucks become a contender with Miller in the line-up, I'll salute you. (Not that you need my salute.)

Adding a prime aged top line talent especially on a great contract for potentially so little is never an obstacle in becoming a contender lol

I already mentioned whats keeping this team from becoming top tier.

 

[Blue and Green]

What were the circumstances that had you evaluate this trade as fair when it was made? Please elaborate. Specifically, what did the team's record mean in terms of dealing a potentially unprotected 1st rounder and what did you evaluate Miller to be as a player?

Further question: Do you think VAN could get a potentially unprotected 1st rounder from a multi-year bottom feeder two years from now?

My assessment of Miller the player: In his four previous seasons he had finished 111th, 53rd, 72nd and 117th in scoring among forwards-- in a league with 30 or 31 teams, that essentially means anywhere from lower end #2 to lower end #4 forward production each season-- while doing okay defensively and also filling in capably at centre on a fairly frequent basis. On a $5.25M contract for 4 more years without trade protection and only age 26. That's a valuable asset.

Circumstances: Tampa wasn't going to hit a home run in a trade because of their cap situation but it's still a competitive market place and J.T. was a quality asset so it wasn't as though they'd have to give the guy away. Seemed like the Canucks had maybe gotten a modest bargain, in line with what could be expected knowing that Tampa had to trade one of their well-paid guys. (Miller, of course, subsequently exceeded my expectations this season.)

Value two years from now: Toffoli as a rental fetched a 2nd plus a solid prospect in Madden who probably carries late 1st-round or early 2nd-round value in draft pick terms at this stage. Miller is clearly a better player than Toffoli and even allowing for decline it seems that two years from now he should probably be worth at least as much as Toffoli was this past February.

 

[Lindgren]

Adding a prime aged top line talent especially on a great contract for potentially so little is never an obstacle in becoming a contender lol

I already mentioned whats keeping this team from becoming top tier.

The "potentially so little" and the timing of the trade are the issues. So far, Miller has helped the team to become mediocre. I predict that he'll continue to help them remain so, and then his contract will near its end, and yes, he'll have been an obstacle to the team becoming a contender. As I said, I'll salute you if I'm wrong, but I wonder if it turns out that I'm right whether you'll revisit your position.