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

[DonnyNucker]

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.

Loui scored 14 points in 54 games with plenty of top 6 ice. You are wrong

 

[Peen]

Loui scored 14 points in 54 games with plenty of top 6 ice. You are wrong

Not debating that.

But the sample size is short enough that I could see something ridiculous happen where he has a bit of a hot streak.

Miller scores at over 2x the rate at ES and is also a good PP player so it's likely that Miller wins but I don't see it as a guarantee.

 

[DonnyNucker]

Not debating that.

But the sample size is short enough that I could see something ridiculous happen where he has a bit of a hot streak.

Miller scores at over 2x the rate at ES and is also a good PP player so it's likely that Miller wins but I don't see it as a guarantee.

Oh now I get it. You are Loui’s agent

 

[bandwagonesque]

Loui scored 14 points in 54 games with plenty of top 6 ice. You are wrong

Eriksson didn't have plenty of top 6 ice time. He averaged about 12-13 minutes a game, standard 3rd-4th line ice time, with much of that spent killing penalties.

 

[DonnyNucker]

Eriksson didn't have plenty of top 6 ice time. He averaged about 12-13 minutes a game, standard 4th line ice time, with much of that spent killing penalties.

How much top 6 ice time did he have? If you answer more than one minute that’s a travesty

 

[Peen]

How much top 6 ice time did he have? If you answer more than one minute that’s a travesty

Right, but to compare last season to this season is a bit unfair considering they had Leivo/Toffoli for fairly long stretches.

Again, after Virtanen, who's most likely to get bumped into the top six?

 

[bandwagonesque]

How much top 6 ice time did he have? If you answer more than one minute that’s a travesty

You're kind of proving my point, which is that it's possible to point out that Eriksson sucks without making anything up.

 

[VancouverJagger]

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.

Yup I agree completely.........franchise D-man check, franchise center and excellent 2nd line center option check, high end talent on 2 lines check, goalie who can win you a playoff series on his own check.

Our window is wide open - I would say it's going to be that way for 9-12 years or however long Petey and Huggy Bear are on the team. Yeah I think Petey is going to be that good that with him we are always going to be relevant. He really is our Datysuk - hopefully he's going to finally bring us our cup. He's won at every level he's played at - I wouldn't doubt he finds a way to do so in the Show.

We are sooooo lucky to have this guy - he's such a stud.

 

[Peen]

So if our window opened already, if we miss the playoffs, should the coach and gm be fired?

 

[DonnyNucker]

So if our window opened already, if we miss the playoffs, should the coach and gm be fired?

It’s going to be a strange, shortened season. Not sure it’s that black and white as there are too many unknown variables. If the team has a big regression then yes

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

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

Loui Eriksson got considerable time with Horvat last year when our forward depth was much deeper. He'll probably get 11 points in around 40 games with 5 being empty net points.

 

[DonnyNucker]

Loui Eriksson got considerable time with Horvat last year when our forward depth was much deeper. He'll probably get 11 points in around 40 games with 5 being empty net points.

Well then it’s settled because Miller is getting more than 28 in 40

 

[F A N]

Eriksson didn't have plenty of top 6 ice time. He averaged about 12-13 minutes a game, standard 3rd-4th line ice time, with much of that spent killing penalties.

Eriksson's most frequent linemate was Horvat followed by Pearson. No other forwards came close. Horvat spent most of his time on a line with Pearson followed by Eriksson.

 

[F A N]

Why'd you leave out Demko from your list?

I assume that when you are referring to the "Brackett era" you're not referring to his time as a part-time regional scout.

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 don't disagree. I think (2) requires some projection as to where the pick would likely end up which you touch upon below.

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.

Agreed. I remember Benning or someone else saying that the Canucks had Brisebois ranked higher. That may just be the normal sell job, but there's a good chance we would have drafted Brisebois in the higher slot.

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.

Yes. It was certainly a high price to pay for Gudbranson. We basically traded two late 1sts + for him. But I think a lot of it does have to do with Gudbranson not being the top 4 right shot RD we hoped he would. If he was, the equation changes. In terms of the draft pick, it was certainly a high pick that gives you a good shot at drafting a first round talent who develops into a good NHL player. I think the Canucks did have a shot at drafting DeBrincat and Kryou (who were ranked 33rd and 34th, respectively, by McKenzie) but there is a huge difference between a 40 goal scoring DeBrincat and Kryou. I certainly wouldn't lose sleep over trading McCann and Kryou for a 2nd pairing right shot RD with size and physicality so the problem absolutely is Gudbranson not being the top 4 Dman we hoped he would be and DeBrincat having been as good as he was.

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.

I guess I may be able to compartmentalize better than you here. To me you're talking about two different things. The Canucks have traditionally done poorly at the draft. It's a major reason why the Canucks have never won the Stanley Cup. Being a Canucks GM who is good at drafting is really a low bar that Benning has met. At the same time, the odds are the odds. What were the odds of Goldobin developing in to an NHL player at the time of acquisition and say a player you draft in the late 2nd?

 

[Javaman]

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.

Better question: What happens first? Miller hits 100 points as a Canuck? Or Eriksson hits 1000 NHL games while a Canuck?

Looking at the Canucks forward depth, I say this is too close to call.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Edit - I'll put this in a spoiler tag as it's gone off topic from Miller and people might not want to read it lol.

Spoiler

I assume that when you are referring to the "Brackett era" you're not referring to his time as a part-time regional scout.

We were discussing the likelihood of 2nd round picks making it generally before, so I don't see how this is even that relevant. And Brackett always specialized in the USHL/NCAA area of prospects, which applies to Demko. Seems like you're leaving out Demko as it goes against your argument that 2nd round picks aren't very likely to pan out? It just goes to show that the Canucks can hit on 2nd round picks every now and then.

Yes. It was certainly a high price to pay for Gudbranson. We basically traded two late 1sts + for him. But I think a lot of it does have to do with Gudbranson not being the top 4 right shot RD we hoped he would. If he was, the equation changes. In terms of the draft pick, it was certainly a high pick that gives you a good shot at drafting a first round talent who develops into a good NHL player. I think the Canucks did have a shot at drafting DeBrincat and Kryou (who were ranked 33rd and 34th, respectively, by McKenzie) but there is a huge difference between a 40 goal scoring DeBrincat and Kryou. I certainly wouldn't lose sleep over trading McCann and Kryou for a 2nd pairing right shot RD with size and physicality so the problem absolutely is Gudbranson not being the top 4 Dman we hoped he would be and DeBrincat having been as good as he was.

Agreed, the price was reasonable if we were getting a solid, young top 4 with top pairing upside. The other advantage to any of those prospects listed is that you are able to fill out the bottom 6 with much more cost-controlled, lower cap-hit players with more upside than players like Beagle/Roussel/Eriksson/Sutter/etc.

I guess I may be able to compartmentalize better than you here. To me you're talking about two different things. The Canucks have traditionally done poorly at the draft. It's a major reason why the Canucks have never won the Stanley Cup. Being a Canucks GM who is good at drafting is really a low bar that Benning has met. At the same time, the odds are the odds.

Agree to disagree. I recall Benning coming in as GM being heralded for his drafting/scouting abilities, and I also recall Benning supporters routinely pointing to our draft picks/prospects as the main reason for praising Benning. So it follows that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to trade away draft picks when your GM's main strength is drafting. And it definitely doesn't make sense for fans to praise his drafting, and then say that 2nd round picks rarely work out so trading them isn't a big deal after all. All I take away from this is that there are certain people that are able to rationalize any actions made by a GM as they'd prefer to be "optimistic" or "glass half full" in spite of any of the evidence that arises to the contrary. It's easy to convince yourself everything is fine and live happily ignorant; I've definitely been guilty of it before.

What were the odds of Goldobin developing in to an NHL player at the time of acquisition and say a player you draft in the late 2nd?

Mentioning Goldobin is a red herring here. Trading for other team's prospects is an entirely different beast compared to drafting. Usually when a team is willing to trade one of their prospects, they probably have a good reason for it - whether it's the player's deficiencies on the ice (Goldobin's play away from the puck), or other things like personality/character/commitment issues. Draft picks are a clean slate where scouts can do their due diligence and select any player out of hundreds of prospects depending on their preference, which is much more preferrable for a rebuilding team IMO. The Goldobin/Vey/Dahlen/Pouliot/Clendening trades were just lazy shortcut, age gap experiments that failed - Benning just wanted to save the time a draft pick would take to develop and get someone NHL ready, but he clearly did a poor job scouting these prospects prior to making the trades based on the results.

 

[F A N]

We were discussing the likelihood of 2nd round picks making it generally before, so I don't see how this is even that relevant. And Brackett always specialized in the USHL/NCAA area of prospects, which applies to Demko. Seems like you're leaving out Demko as it goes against your argument that 2nd round picks aren't very likely to pan out? It just goes to show that the Canucks can hit on 2nd round picks every now and then.

No I specifically left out Demko because Brackett wasn't running the draft at the time. You asked me why and that is my answer. There's no point arguing over my intentions just because you don't believe me. You were talking about faith in Canucks scouting especially during the Brackett era. Given that Benning just came on board and Brackett wasn't running the draft, I don't see how Canucks fans should have that much more faith in the Canucks scouting in 2014 than in previous Gillis years.

More specifically to Demko, I think drafting a goaltender high in the draft is very much a GM's decision. We've seen Benning call the shots in the behind scene videos as to whether to draft a goaltender or not. Brian Burke famously said that he doesn't believe in drafting goaltenders in the first round. Benning also saw a lot of Demko in Boston. There are Demko calibre or better prospects that come along probably 7-8 out of 10 drafts. A lot of it comes down to where the goalie is projected to go and whether you use that high pick to draft him.

Agreed, the price was reasonable if we were getting a solid, young top 4 with top pairing upside. The other advantage to any of those prospects listed is that you are able to fill out the bottom 6 with much more cost-controlled, lower cap-hit players with more upside than players like Beagle/Roussel/Eriksson/Sutter/etc.

We are in agreement here. The best way to acquire a player really is to draft him and many later 2nd round and early 3rd round picks tend to require development time so they serve as valuable depth on the farm before they force their way into the lineup.

Agree to disagree. I recall Benning coming in as GM being heralded for his drafting/scouting abilities, and I also recall Benning supporters routinely pointing to our draft picks/prospects as the main reason for praising Benning. So it follows that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to trade away draft picks when your GM's main strength is drafting. And it definitely doesn't make sense for fans to praise his drafting, and then say that 2nd round picks rarely work out so trading them isn't a big deal after all. All I take away from this is that there are certain people that are able to rationalize any actions made by a GM as they'd prefer to be "optimistic" or "glass half full" in spite of any of the evidence that arises to the contrary. It's easy to convince yourself everything is fine and live happily ignorant; I've definitely been guilty of it before.

It's really simple. The odds of a second round pick developing into an NHL player is less than 25%. The odds of a second round pick developing into a top 4 Dman or top 6 forward is probably less than 20%. The odds are not good for every GM and scout and that's just a fact. That doesn't and shouldn't prevent a GM or scout to be considered good at drafting based on relative performance.

Mentioning Goldobin is a red herring here. Trading for other team's prospects is an entirely different beast compared to drafting. Usually when a team is willing to trade one of their prospects, they probably have a good reason for it - whether it's the player's deficiencies on the ice (Goldobin's play away from the puck), or other things like personality/character/commitment issues. Draft picks are a clean slate where scouts can do their due diligence and select any player out of hundreds of prospects depending on their preference, which is much more preferrable for a rebuilding team IMO. The Goldobin/Vey/Dahlen/Pouliot/Clendening trades were just lazy shortcut, age gap experiments that failed - Benning just wanted to save the time a draft pick would take to develop and get someone NHL ready, but he clearly did a poor job scouting these prospects prior to making the trades based on the results.
[/spoiler]

I disagree. I believe in evaluating the prospect on it's own. Goldobin was a former 1st round pick who was drafted in the latter part of the first round precisely because of his deficiencies. Sure there is always a reason when a team trades a player but sometimes it's just the price to pay. Benning didn't want to trade McCann but that was the ask to get the deal done. It's weird that posters would have an issue taking a chance on a talented prospect and at the same time had issue with dumping Shinkaruk which many of us pegged as top 6 or bust and really likely to bust.[/QUOTE]