Player Discussion What do we have in J.T. Miller? | Part 2

[Peter10]

The year is 2018

Benning (and ownership) were right that his team was good enough to compete for a playoff spot..He took action in the 2019 off season

Linden was wrong in that the team needed a 4 year ‘slow cook’ rebuild..which would have lasted till 2022

it was over this disagreement that Linden left the organization.

What if the team regresses this year? Was Benning still right then just because of a one year wonder? If they take a step back this year which isnt all that unlikely we are back on the 4 year time line Linden gave.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

What if the team regresses this year? Was Benning still right then just because of a one year wonder? If they take a step back this year which isnt all that unlikely we are back on the 4 year time line Linden gave.

Not to mention that Benning was only right in making the playoffs based on a shortened 69 game season with a play-in playoffs format. Not trying to diminish the Canucks' success this season, just pointing out that this season was not a 'normal' season in judging the competitiveness of the team. I'm sure we'll see another shortened season this upcoming season, but it'll be a better indicator given the makeover with additions like Holtby and Schmidt (as opposed to heavily relying on Markstrom and Tanev who both got injured right before the season was suspended). If they can make the playoffs next season, I'll be more convinced this is a legit playoff team.

 

[F A N]

I don't think the super slow rebuild necessarily works. If you win the lottery and draft a generational player or two then that goes a long way to helping the team compete for a Cup for years to come. But failing that, the teams that have won the Cup have continuously made moves to get better. The Lightning rebuilt with Stamkos and Hedman but even Hedman is 29. The Garth Snow rebuild of the Islanders saw plenty of prospect accumulation with the crown jewel being Tavares who is no longer with the team.

I don't think it's "trying to make the playoffs" that is the problem but the value you received from various moves. For all intents and purposes, Petey is probably at the beginning of his physical prime. Hughes is getting there as well. Horvat is in his prime. You want to make the playoffs and keep adding talent to that group. Look at the career of Taylor Hall. His prime was wasted not because the Oilers "tried to make the playoffs" before their time but because they simply haven't gotten value from their draft picks, signings, trades etc.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

What if the team regresses this year? Was Benning still right then just because of a one year wonder? If they take a step back this year which isnt all that unlikely we are back on the 4 year time line Linden gave.

I think so..The window for the Canucks to be an annual playoff team opened last season..If you're doing a 'slow cook ' rebuild, you certainly don't trade your 1st round draft pick (Miller), and you dont sign high profile UFA's (Myers)..If we were in the midst of a rebuild, we would likely have more cap space (like OTT, DET) , but then again, a lot of players are not interested in teams that are not focussed on competing..When you're heading into six consecutive years without the post season, you're into that 'rebuild on the rebuild ' territory..imo

Its a results based business, and the Canucks could take a step back this year (owing to lack of foresight), but the essential framework to be an annual playoff team is intact.

 

[Didalee Hed]

The year is 2018

Benning (and ownership) were right that his team was good enough to compete for a playoff spot..He took action in the 2019 off season

Linden was wrong in that the team needed a 4 year ‘slow cook’ rebuild..which would have lasted till 2022

it was over this disagreement that Linden left the organization.

The wrong employee left the organization

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The wrong employee left the organization

You mean the one whose mandate that led us down the wrong garden path ( 'rebuild on the fly' 2014-17)...Then in 2018 ..proposed a 4 year Winnipeg model, 4 year 'slow cook rebuild'...?

 

[Didalee Hed]

You mean the one whose mandate that led us down the wrong garden path ( 'rebuild on the fly' 2014-17)...Then in 2018 ..proposed a 4 year Winnipeg model, 4 year 'slow cook rebuild'...?

I would have been fine with linden leaving with jimbo in tow

Jimbo as sole survivor was crap

I can’t wait until I can believe my team has a realistic future of success again

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I would have been fine with linden leaving with jimbo in tow

Jimbo as sole survivor was crap

I can’t wait until I can believe my team has a realistic future of success again

Fair enough.

 

[sting101]

It shouldn't be, and I don't think it actually is for many people. The value of a pick is in the opportunity it affords to draft a player of your choice, not in whether the choice you made after having secured that opportunity was the correct one, and this is pretty obvious.

i hear what your saying but people will inevitably say things like the Oilers trading for Griffen Reinhart cost them Matt Barzal. That Gudbranson cost us Alex DeBrincat and Sven Baertschi cost us Rasmus Andersson

 

[bandwagonesque]

i hear what your saying but people will inevitably say things like the Oilers trading for Griffen Reinhart cost them Matt Barzal. That Gudbranson cost us Alex DeBrincat and Sven Baertschi cost us Rasmus Andersson

Okay. They’re irrational too.

 

[F A N]

It shouldn't be, and I don't think it actually is for many people. The value of a pick is in the opportunity it affords to draft a player of your choice, not in whether the choice you made after having secured that opportunity was the correct one, and this is pretty obvious.

Okay. They’re irrational too.

People tend to choose whatever advances their agenda and or argument.

Traditionally, hockey trades have always been evaluated by results. Lopsided trades from the outset are so infrequent that there will never be winners and we like to analyze who won the trade. Certainly, Stojanov for Naslund is one of the greatest trades in NHL history not because everyone knew or expected at the time that Naslund would blossom into a Art Ross trophy contender or that there was a high risk of Naslund developing into such a player. I don't think even Boston expected that the Leafs draft picks given up for Kessel would turn into opportunities to draft Seguin and Hamilton calibre players.

A lot of posters who think "the value of a pick is the opportunity it affords to draft a player of your choice" don't take into consideration the likelihood of that pick turning into a top 4 or top 6 player. Miller himself was a former 15th overall pick in a draft that ended up having a pretty deep top 10. If Podkolzin turned out into a Miller type player I think most of us would be extremely happy.

 

[BB06]

i hear what your saying but people will inevitably say things like the Oilers trading for Griffen Reinhart cost them Matt Barzal. That Gudbranson cost us Alex DeBrincat and Sven Baertschi cost us Rasmus Andersson

The Oilers one is legit. Regardless of if they don't take Barzal they'd still have

Chabot
Connor
Boeser
konecny
etc on the board. That draft was next level stacked and both Conor/Barzal were no brainer high-end prospect even at the time.

 

[sting101]

The Oilers one is legit. Regardless of if they don't take Barzal they'd still have

Chabot
Connor
Boeser
konecny
etc on the board. That draft was next level stacked and both Conor/Barzal were no brainer high-end prospect even at the time.

Hey it's the Oilers it's entirely likely they draft Nick Merkley of Svechnikov.

I get what you guys are saying though it was an opportunity to get a Boeser Konecny Connor Chabot or Barzal who were all available and in the case of Connor and Barzal top 10 talents who had fallen because some teams prioritized size or positional needs. Opportunity cost lost for a fixed assetcthat was failing...Awful trade

That draft is actually as good a illustration of the idiotic idea that size is more important than skill as any. Of the first round picks the worst are almost entirely a combination of A high end junior player without high end skating and B size without top line kill.

Category A = Merkley Zboril
Category B = Hanifin Zacha Crouse Senyshyn Carlsson

All of these picks above would have been better served had they prioritized the highest end talents that had good enough skating to create some space at the NHL level

 

[DonnyNucker]

I would have been fine with linden leaving with jimbo in tow

Jimbo as sole survivor was crap

I can’t wait until I can believe my team has a realistic future of success again

How was the team last season?

 

[Didalee Hed]

How was the team last season?

Sinking like a stone until an act of god pandemic threw them a lifeline, saving the season in their all in go for broke year.

 

[DonnyNucker]

Sinking like a stone until an act of god pandemic threw them a lifeline, saving the season in their all in go for broke year.

All in go for broke? Hardly. They were clearly deserving of their spot in the playoffs. Beat two teams and were one win away from the conference final

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

A lot of posters who think "the value of a pick is the opportunity it affords to draft a player of your choice" don't take into consideration the likelihood of that pick turning into a top 4 or top 6 player. Miller himself was a former 15th overall pick in a draft that ended up having a pretty deep top 10. If Podkolzin turned out into a Miller type player I think most of us would be extremely happy.

That's part of the greater picture, though. I don't think many people are arguing that draft picks = slam dunk prospects that will develop into great NHL players.
I think people just believe that the more draft picks a team has, the higher chance a team has at acquiring NHL players via the draft. This is especially true when you have faith in your organization's scouting, which many did (especially during the Brackett era). So yeah, the more draft picks burned, the less likely you can draft great prospects (common sense, but it's the opposite side to your bolded point). It's even more true when you consider the team has traded away like four 2nd round picks for garbage.

 

[Didalee Hed]

All in go for broke? Hardly. They were clearly deserving of their spot in the playoffs. Beat two teams and were one win away from the conference final

I hope you enjoyed that because it is as good as the team will be until Benning’s island of misfit contracts has been cleared and someone competent has replaced the buffoon himself.

 

[DonnyNucker]

I hope you enjoyed that because it is as good as the team will be until Benning’s island of misfit contracts has been cleared and someone competent has replaced the buffoon himself.

You may be correct but I don’t believe so. I believe in this core and they can overcome a bit of lost depth due to some bad contracts

 

[Didalee Hed]

You may be correct but I don’t believe so. I believe in this core and they can overcome a bit of lost depth due to some bad contracts

Fair enough.

 

[F A N]

That's part of the greater picture, though. I don't think many people are arguing that draft picks = slam dunk prospects that will develop into great NHL players.
I think people just believe that the more draft picks a team has, the higher chance a team has at acquiring NHL players via the draft. This is especially true when you have faith in your organization's scouting, which many did (especially during the Brackett era). So yeah, the more draft picks burned, the less likely you can draft great prospects (common sense, but it's the opposite side to your bolded point). It's even more true when you consider the team has traded away like four 2nd round picks for garbage.

Yes in theory the more draft picks you have the higher chance a team has of acquiring NHL players via the draft. An extra penny is an extra penny and a extra dollar is a extra dollar. With that said, we haven't drafted any player of note from the 6th round onwards since Hansen in the 9th round so you wonder if it's worth bundling up those late round draft picks and moving up in any given draft.

I hate trading draft picks (especially 1st and 2nd round picks) as much as anyone. With that said, the early returns on our 2nd round picks in the Brackett era has hardly been spectacular: Woo, Lind, Gadjovich. At the end of the day I think you got to strike a balance between relying on your draft picks turning out into drafted prospects who develop into good NHL players and using draft picks as currency to actually acquire NHL players.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I hate trading draft picks (especially 1st and 2nd round picks) as much as anyone. With that said, the early returns on our 2nd round picks in the Brackett era has hardly been spectacular: Woo, Lind, Gadjovich. At the end of the day I think you got to strike a balance between relying on your draft picks turning out into drafted prospects who develop into good NHL players and using draft picks as currency to actually acquire NHL players.

Why'd you leave out Demko from your list?

I think there are really only two main factors for determining whether it's worth giving up draft picks (and I'm probably stating the obvious here): (1) is the player you're acquiring in the trade worth it?; and (2) what are the quality of the prospects who are available at the pick?

I'll try to demonstrate this with examples on each end of the spectrum involving trading away our 2nd round picks.

The Baertschi trade is one. This seems a bit more justifiable to me. We gave up 53rd overall (Calgary drafted Andersson); if you look at who was drafted from 53rd onwards, it's really just Andersson and Dunn who have become regular NHLers...and then we drafted Brisebois at 66th overall so there's not much of an argument that we could have drafted a player like Cirelli who went after Brisebois. It seems pretty unlikely that we would have landed either Andersson/Dunn, but we'll obviously never know the team's rankings for that pick.

On the other hand, trading 33rd overall in the Gudbranson trade was god awful, and not just because Gudbranson sucks. That 33rd overall pick could have been any of Kyrou, DeBrincat (rumour was the scouts liked him), Girard, Hart, Lindgren, Hronek, Dube, etc. Even lesser known names like Gambrell have developed well so far. In other words, there are at least 7-8 players who went within 25 spots of our 33rd overall. Those are some pretty decent odds at landing a quality prospect that is likely to be a consistent NHLer.

Not that this necessarily applies to you, but I'll never understand how some posters here can always commend management on their drafting capabilities, but then dismiss draft picks that are traded away by using the "well they barely ever pan out anyways" logic. Seems contradictory to me and likely is due to confirmation bias.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Who do you all think will get 100 points as a Canuck first, Eriksson or Miller? Miller needs 28 more points, and Eriksson needs 11. I say Miller.

 

[DonnyNucker]

Who do you all think will get 100 points as a Canuck first, Eriksson or Miller? Miller needs 28 more points, and Eriksson needs 11. I say Miller.

Serious question? Loui isn’t getting another 11 points and Miller will hit that mark in 30 games lol

 

[Peen]

Serious question? Loui isn’t getting another 11 points and Miller will hit that mark in 30 games lol

Another reminder that Loui is one of our 12 best forwards and it would cost the canucks millions in real dollars to send him down in favour of someone like Lind who's on a two-way.

Given that Virtanen is the guy penciled in for a top six role, I wouldn't be surprised if Loui ends up in another top six role with the departure of Leivo/Toffoli.

I would probably bet Miller but with injury or empty net luck, it could be close.