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

[supercanuck]

"Best" case scenario is probably that we miss the playoffs in 2019/2020 so that we get a lottery pick in what is supposed to be a really good draft year (and most likely Benning and Weisbrod would be fired). I'm not sure if my heart can take sitting through the entire 2020/2021 season hoping for the playoffs though.

 

[4Twenty]

"Best" case scenario is probably that we miss the playoffs in 2019/2020 so that we get a lottery pick in what is supposed to be a really good draft year (and most likely Benning and Weisbrod would be fired). I'm not sure if my heart can take sitting through the entire 2020/2021 season hoping for the playoffs though.

The assumption that Benning is going to get fired if he doesn't make the playoffs is wishful thinking. I can't see the ownership group allowing him to make all these moves and spend all this money this offseason as a lame duck. I imagine he'll be extended this summer.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Cheers. It's good for us to see you back posting after it looked you might be gone for a long while.

I do consider the trade horrendous and indefensible. You've alluded to the main part of my reason for that in some of your early posts on the trade, where you indicated (I haven't gone back to see your exact words) that it depends on where you think the team is.

The other part of my reason is closely related to that and it is a consideration of team goals. I'll try to clarify both below, but first note it isn't so much about the value. While I'm horrified about the possibility of Tampa getting a high pick in 2021 that should belong to the Canucks, other than that for the right team I think the value only slightly too high.

I think though that the highest bidder for Miller's contract should not have been a rebuilding team. It didn't have to be a good team, but it should have been a team either in a position to contend or which already had a solid core of young players. The Canucks core of good young players is imo too small to fit that latter category. That's no slight on Pettersson, Boeser or Hughes. This problem as I see it is that there aren't more Demkos and Gaudettes behind them.

A very few star-level young players without a solid group behind them isn't sufficient to have a team contend over a period of years. I don't think the future looks bright at this stage.

I understand those that want to "go for it" before Bo starts to decline and while Pettersson, Boeser and Hughes are still young, but in my view the results of Benning's efforts will end up somewhere between becoming a team that might last to the second round of the playoffs on the high side and being a slightly better non-playoff team on the low side.

What is given up in going for it now is of course in the future. Whomever the Canucks would get with the picks given up won't be available to the Canucks for at least two years and after that could be anywhere in the range of bust to superstar.

I'd rather have a chance at players who might help the team for several years while they may be contending than the known quantity of a medium-high salaried player who rates to be good while the team's upside is to make the playoffs.

Of course, Benning doesn't have the luxury of thinking that way. Right now his job appears to be on the line and if he doesn't make the playoffs next season he's unemployed. He's had his chance to build and it is show-me time. By the standards of the position Benning is in, this trade is fine.

I think though that putting a general manager in the position where his goals are not identical to the long-term health of the team inevitably leads to moves that aren't to the long-term benefit of the team. Any move that makes the Canucks a little better now and removes some of the chances to be much better 5-10 years from now is not a move I consider to be in the interest of the long-term health of the franchise.

Those whose main goal for the Canucks is to make the playoffs the next two or three seasons won't hate this trade. Those who want more and for longer should imo think it terrible. It's not so much value, it is the shifting of potential long-term future good to a shorter term present improvement to a level that isn't very high.

What a wonderful post. Well done.

 

[Melvin]

Trading future #1 picks when you’re currently a non-playoff lottery team is indefensible. Period. It is the single stupidest, more reckless, most irresponsible thing a GM can do.

We literally just saw what can happen here with Ottawa’s Duchene trade disaster. We’ve seen this before when we gave away #3 overall in the Barry Pederson deal thinking there was no way we’d ever miss the playoffs with Pederson.

Again, if we’d picked up pick #23 in the 2019 draft somehow in a previous transaction and traded that for Miller, fine. But you simply do not trade away future #1 picks when you’re a lottery team that went 22-36 in regulation in the previous season.

If a friend offers you $1000 to play Russian Roulette, the 80% chance you could win and buy 2 plane tickets to Mexico isn’t worth the 20% chance of blowing your brains out. There’s probably a better than 50/50 chance this trade turns out ok. But that doesn’t mean it’s with taking the substantial chance we end up in the position Ottawa was just in.

You just told me, last week, that the Canucks were basically a playoff team. That having Schenn in the lineup instead of Gudbranson would have made them a playoff team. If you hold that view (and I don't,) then you must hold the view that the Canucks will likely make the playoffs in one of the next two seasons, in which case this trade is not a "blow your brains out" maneuver.

You bring up probability, and it's interesting that you wouldn't do it at an 80% chance, but you would do it at 100% chance. So where is the breakeven point for you? If it's a 99% chance they make the playoffs in ONE of the next TWO seasons, you still wouldn't do it, because of the 1% chance they might give up a top-10 pick? That seems honestly completely disproportionate to the downside, which even for Ottawa meant losing the #4 under the nightmare scenario. So that's all I'm asking; it needs to be 100% for you?

I think I make this trade if it's 80%, and would probably go down to 75%, but not any lower.

I wouldn't 80% blow my brains out for $1,000, but that's a silly analogy because my life is worth a hell of a lot more than $1,000. Would you play Russian Roulette for any amount of money? For an 80% chance at all of the money in the world against a 20% chance at losing your life? I think that's the more interesting question, although it loses track of the actual hockey discussion for obvious reasons, since losing even the #1 overall pick is not the equivalent of suicide. If the actual franchise were on the line, where the team would be folded if they "lose the bet," then the percentages are different.

This is more like, if you had an 80% chance at $10,000 vs. a 20% chance of breaking your foot, would you do that?

 

[Melvin]

I think I want to go back and see how Blues fans reacted to them trading their #1 last year after they (gasp) missed the playoffs the previous season. I said this on Twitter, but this is similar to if the Canucks in 2014 had traded their 2015 pick for a ROR-calibre player. I think everyone here would have lost their minds about that. All I'm saying is that it isn't black and white; if you project the team to be a playoff team starting next year (and I don't , to be clear,) then this trade is perfectly defensible.

It's bad because the team has, in my opinion, completely misevaluated where their team is at, something they have done basically since they got here.

 

[opendoor]

You just told me, last week, that the Canucks were basically a playoff team. That having Schenn in the lineup instead of Gudbranson would have made them a playoff team. If you hold that view (and I don't,) then you must hold the view that the Canucks will likely make the playoffs in one of the next two seasons, in which case this trade is not a "blow your brains out" maneuver.

Yeah, but there was a lot going on this year that might not be repeatable. The unusually low bar to get into the playoffs, Markstrom playing out of his mind, and the team managing a near .500 record despite going .379 in regulation are all unlikely to happen again. So a relatively small improvement in the 18-19 season might've been enough to get them close to the playoffs whereas they'll need a large improvement to achieve that going forward.

 

[xtr3m]

The assumption that Benning is going to get fired if he doesn't make the playoffs is wishful thinking. I can't see the ownership group allowing him to make all these moves and spend all this money this offseason as a lame duck. I imagine he'll be extended this summer.

The ownership first and foremost needs a yes-man and Benning is exactly that. They had no problem firing the fan favourite Linden, who was brought on to reassure and calm down the fans.

There's little hope as long as the ownership stays the same.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

You just told me, last week, that the Canucks were basically a playoff team. That having Schenn in the lineup instead of Gudbranson would have made them a playoff team. If you hold that view (and I don't,) then you must hold the view that the Canucks will likely make the playoffs in one of the next two seasons, in which case this trade is not a "blow your brains out" maneuver.

I think it's possible to hold the view that the Canucks were close to making the playoffs *this* season, an historic anomaly where the Western Conference playoff bar was pathetically low, and that is likely to regress next year.

 

[Melvin]

Yeah, but there was a lot going on this year that might not be repeatable. The unusually low bar to get into the playoffs, Markstrom playing out of his mind, and the team managing a near .500 record despite going .379 in regulation are all unlikely to happen again. So a relatively small improvement in the 18-19 season might've been enough to get them close to the playoffs whereas they'll need a large improvement to achieve that going forward.

I think it's possible to hold the view that the Canucks were close to making the playoffs *this* season, an historic anomaly where the Western Conference playoff bar was pathetically low, and that is likely to regress next year.

I don't think that, given the context of our discussion, that this was his point. His point was clearly that he saw the team as one that would get into the playoffs fairly soon.

To be clear, I don't hold this view, and I agree with the 2 of you. But if you hold the position that this is a team that will get in soon, then I think you have to view the trade accordingly, which is all I am saying.

I don't think it's congruent to say "This is a team that will clearly make the playoffs pretty soon because of Pettersson" and also say "a trade where they might give up a high pick if they miss the playoffs in *both* of the next two seasons is indefensible."

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

I don't think that, given the context of our discussion, that this was his point. His point was clearly that he saw the team as one that would get into the playoffs fairly soon.

To be clear, I don't hold this view, and I agree with the 2 of you. But if you hold the position that this is a team that will get in soon, then I think you have to view the trade accordingly, which is all I am saying.

I don't think it's congruent to say "This is a team that will clearly make the playoffs pretty soon because of Pettersson" and also say "a trade where they might give up a high pick if they miss the playoffs in *both* of the next two seasons is indefensible."

Well I won't speak for MS but here's how I see it:

- The Canucks as constructed aren't close to being a playoff team, generally speaking.
- In a weirdly easy season in the Western Conference, the Canucks could have made the playoffs as a one-off if a few small things broke their way.
- There's enough talent and cap space here that a decent GM could just needs to add depth pieces and expect to have a pretty good team. Not a contender, but in the playoffs. This makes it unlikely that the Canucks will concede a high pick in 2021 to Tampa Bay.
- Jim Benning is not that GM.

So the Miller trade, in general, is not a bad one to make. But with this management group at the helm? Potentially catastrophic.

 

[Melvin]

Well I won't speak for MS but here's how I see it:

- The Canucks as constructed aren't close to being a playoff team, generally speaking.
- In a weirdly easy season in the Western Conference, the Canucks could have made the playoffs as a one-off if a few small things broke their way.
- There's enough talent and cap space here that a decent GM could just needs to add depth pieces and expect to have a pretty good team. Not a contender, but in the playoffs. This makes it unlikely that the Canucks will concede a high pick in 2021 to Tampa Bay.
- Jim Benning is not that GM.

So the Miller trade, in general, is not a bad one to make. But with this management group at the helm? Potentially catastrophic.

I 100% agree with you, my point is with regards to the bolded, that there *are* circumstances where I think this trade makes sense, even if I don't believe this is one of them. This is counter to the idea that a "non-playoff team trading their future #1 is always indefensible," which others have stated.

It has to do with how you project them for next season, not how they were last season, which is irrelevant except in how it informs your projection.

 

[Melvin]

Cheers. It's good for us to see you back posting after it looked you might be gone for a long while.

I do consider the trade horrendous and indefensible. You've alluded to the main part of my reason for that in some of your early posts on the trade, where you indicated (I haven't gone back to see your exact words) that it depends on where you think the team is.

The other part of my reason is closely related to that and it is a consideration of team goals. I'll try to clarify both below, but first note it isn't so much about the value. While I'm horrified about the possibility of Tampa getting a high pick in 2021 that should belong to the Canucks, other than that for the right team I think the value only slightly too high.

I think though that the highest bidder for Miller's contract should not have been a rebuilding team. It didn't have to be a good team, but it should have been a team either in a position to contend or which already had a solid core of young players. The Canucks core of good young players is imo too small to fit that latter category. That's no slight on Pettersson, Boeser or Hughes. This problem as I see it is that there aren't more Demkos and Gaudettes behind them.

A very few star-level young players without a solid group behind them isn't sufficient to have a team contend over a period of years. I don't think the future looks bright at this stage.

I understand those that want to "go for it" before Bo starts to decline and while Pettersson, Boeser and Hughes are still young, but in my view the results of Benning's efforts will end up somewhere between becoming a team that might last to the second round of the playoffs on the high side and being a slightly better non-playoff team on the low side.

What is given up in going for it now is of course in the future. Whomever the Canucks would get with the picks given up won't be available to the Canucks for at least two years and after that could be anywhere in the range of bust to superstar.

I'd rather have a chance at players who might help the team for several years while they may be contending than the known quantity of a medium-high salaried player who rates to be good while the team's upside is to make the playoffs.

Of course, Benning doesn't have the luxury of thinking that way. Right now his job appears to be on the line and if he doesn't make the playoffs next season he's unemployed. He's had his chance to build and it is show-me time. By the standards of the position Benning is in, this trade is fine.

I think though that putting a general manager in the position where his goals are not identical to the long-term health of the team inevitably leads to moves that aren't to the long-term benefit of the team. Any move that makes the Canucks a little better now and removes some of the chances to be much better 5-10 years from now is not a move I consider to be in the interest of the long-term health of the franchise.

Those whose main goal for the Canucks is to make the playoffs the next two or three seasons won't hate this trade. Those who want more and for longer should imo think it terrible. It's not so much value, it is the shifting of potential long-term future good to a shorter term present improvement to a level that isn't very high.

Thanks for the note. I imagine I will be in and out for stretches but we will see how it goes.

I think this is a fair point. Many fans have wanted the Canucks to re-build for a very long time, but it's clear that this has *never* been what the Canucks are actually doing, despite paying lip service to it. This has more to do with the general incompetence of the front office, rather than the thought process of this trade in particular.

The Canucks have always believed they were re-tooling while staying competitive. Somehow they have managed to maintain this delusion even while surrounded by the obvious reality of this team being one of the worst in the NHL for the last half-decade. Their owner still tweets out anti-tank propaganda even though the actual results are just as bad as any tank would have been. They still think they are doing the right thing, competing every night while gradually incorporating youth. It's actually a fascinating study on delusional thinking. They somehow still think this is what they are doing, that they were competitive last year and are ready to take the next step.

I totally agree with you that they are not. They have never been rebuilding on purpose and have backed into getting a few prime assets due to their repeated failure and due to the nature of how the league is structured. That they don't recognize this is frustrating, and they basically haven't learned a thing in their 5 years in charge.

My argument though is, leave that aside for a moment and pretend like they are correct. Just for a moment. Try to view it from their delusion. This team is not rebuilding. The rebuild is complete. The rebuild got us Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, Juolevi (still gonna be a top 4 d-man!) and Demko (future all-star goalie!) Plus Edler and Tanev are studs and we got some real good young players like the Huttons and the Stechers and maybe even Saunter and Ragfferty and Teves. Tons of depth. We also got some real good veterans like Tanner Pearson and Brandon Sutter who are going to protect all these young stars by taking the tough minutes! This is a real good team. This is a playoff team. God, it pained me to type that, but what I'm saying is, if you held this position, THEN would it be OK to make this trade? Or would it always be indefensible because REGARDLESS of how you project the team in the near term, you should never trade your #1 unless you are GUARANTEED for it to be a low pick?

I don't disagree with the team being delusional, with their inability to evaluate themselves manifest and their goals being completely out of whack. These are all very fair points. My question is more of probability and risk aversion. There are some who sound like they are so risk averse that they would never trade a #1 pick if it had, even a 0.000001% chance of being the #1 overall pick. So I'm just interested in seeing where people actually stand on that.

 

[MS]

You just told me, last week, that the Canucks were basically a playoff team. That having Schenn in the lineup instead of Gudbranson would have made them a playoff team. If you hold that view (and I don't,) then you must hold the view that the Canucks will likely make the playoffs in one of the next two seasons, in which case this trade is not a "blow your brains out" maneuver.

You bring up probability, and it's interesting that you wouldn't do it at an 80% chance, but you would do it at 100% chance. So where is the breakeven point for you? If it's a 99% chance they make the playoffs in ONE of the next TWO seasons, you still wouldn't do it, because of the 1% chance they might give up a top-10 pick? That seems honestly completely disproportionate to the downside, which even for Ottawa meant losing the #4 under the nightmare scenario. So that's all I'm asking; it needs to be 100% for you?

I think I make this trade if it's 80%, and would probably go down to 75%, but not any lower.

I wouldn't 80% blow my brains out for $1,000, but that's a silly analogy because my life is worth a hell of a lot more than $1,000. Would you play Russian Roulette for any amount of money? For an 80% chance at all of the money in the world against a 20% chance at losing your life? I think that's the more interesting question, although it loses track of the actual hockey discussion for obvious reasons, since losing even the #1 overall pick is not the equivalent of suicide. If the actual franchise were on the line, where the team would be folded if they "lose the bet," then the percentages are different.

This is more like, if you had an 80% chance at $10,000 vs. a 20% chance of breaking your foot, would you do that?

I think we will probably make the playoffs in the next 2 seasons at some point. Maybe 75% sure.

A 25% chance of crippling the franchise by giving away a high lottery pick is not ok.

When you are in the position we are, you make trades that have cost certainty. You don’t throw the potential of giving up the best asset in the sport (a high lottery pick) for a JT Miller.

The upside of this deal is ‘fair trade’. The downside is brutal. You simply do not risk putting yourselves in the position Ottawa was in this year.

 

[MS]

Just to add, if we’d paid more but protected the pick, that’s fine. Like, if we miss the playoffs both years the pick becomes a 2021 #2 pick ... but we threw in a Virtanen or this year’s #40, ok!

I’d consider it an overpayment but not a stupid, reckless overpayment. Which this is.

 

[m9]

The other thing I will add - it isn't "take this 25% risk or you don't get the player".

Due to the situation, there should have been other ways to get this deal done that didn't involve the risk of giving up a lottery pick. And if they won't take a deal without the chance at a lottery pick, you simply have to say no and move on to other options.

It's just poor negotiating by Benning, simple as that.

 

[DonnyNucker]

Just to add, if we’d paid more but protected the pick, that’s fine. Like, if we miss the playoffs both years the pick becomes a 2021 #2 pick ... but we threw in a Virtanen or this year’s #40, ok!

I’d consider it an overpayment but not a stupid, reckless overpayment. Which this is.

So you think there is a 25% chance that we miss the playoffs each year for the next two years? And let’s assume for a minute that we finish 10th again in 2021 with a 16% shot at a lottery pick. So what are the odds we have a top 3 pick in this scenario? Stats majors please. Less than 1%

 

[Blue and Green]

So you think there is a 25% chance that we miss the playoffs each year for the next two years? And let’s assume for a minute that we finish 10th again in 2021 with a 16% shot at a lottery pick. So what are the odds we have a top 3 pick in this scenario? Stats majors please. Less than 1%

Actually that would be 4%.

 

[m9]

I hate the idea that it's expected the odds for the Canucks to make the playoffs will go up in 2020-21 if they don't make it this year.

I think it's probably a 30% chance they make the playoffs in 2019-20, and if they have a solid year and come close to making the playoffs (but miss) I am fine with moving those odds up up closer to 50% for 2020-21.

However there's a very real scenario where this team sucks again this year and isn't close to the playoffs. If they end up a bottom-five team they will have a new GM and likely a new coach. You want to give them up to a 50%+ chance to make the playoffs in 2020-21?

 

[DonnyNucker]

Actually that would be 4%.

But that’s not factoring in the odds we make the playoffs this year

 

[ProstheticConscience]

So many layers of bad to this trade. Even once you get past the big ones you have Benning adding a 3rd round pick and paying to take on cap space on a day when a team paid a 1st round pick to free it.

 

[Blue and Green]

But that’s not factoring in the odds we make the playoffs this year

As I read the post, it was 25% chance of missing the playoffs in both years, not in each year. So it would be .25 x .16 = .04

 

[Melvin]

The other thing I will add - it isn't "take this 25% risk or you don't get the player".

Due to the situation, there should have been other ways to get this deal done that didn't involve the risk of giving up a lottery pick. And if they won't take a deal without the chance at a lottery pick, you simply have to say no and move on to other options.

It's just poor negotiating by Benning, simple as that.

Yes, but none of us will ever know how those hypothetical discussions and alternatives would have gone, so it's somewhat pointless to discuss them. All we can do is look the scenario as given and debate whether we would feel comfortable accepting those odds.

And, as the resident broken record I just want to re-iterate that it's not about getting "the player" it's about getting 4 years of the player during his prime locked up to a below-market rate, which I put I higher premium on than most (it seems.)

 

[kanuck87]

Actually that would be 4%.

I believe you would have to multiply the 25% twice because they need to miss the playoffs in both seasons.

So 16% * 25% * 25% = 1%

 

[DonnyNucker]

As I read the post, it was 25% chance of missing the playoffs in both years, not in each year. So it would be .25 x .16 = .04

Ok gotcha. So a 4% chance we have given up a lottery pick in 2021. I thinks it’s a bit lower but that’s a good benchmark

 

[Blue and Green]

I believe you would have to multiply the 25% twice because they need to miss the playoffs in both seasons.

So 16% * 25% * 25% = 1%

It said 75% chance of making the playoffs in at least one of the two years, i.e., 25% of not making the playoffs at all in the next two years. Which would be .25 x .16