Proposal: J.T. Miller to TOR

[Cogburn]

Most of the Leaf fans you’re responding to don’t want to trade Kerfoot. Just pointing out he’s a good player.

Enjoy your “superstars” who are all on pace to get under 50 points this year. The future looks bright!

And enjoy lobbying to have every Leafs player ever forced into the HHOF.

The fact that Sandin continues to be talked about in this thread is somewhat pointless. The Leafs are not going to trade him. He was Kyle Dubas' first pick. He has substantially elevated his game in the last few years. His development trajectory fits perfectly into the apparent Jake Muzzin decline issue. His fancy stats (which Dubas is in to) are off the charts. He's not going to be traded, and certainly not for JT Miller -- full stop. This isn't about trying to argue he's a super-prospect or anything like that, he's just not going to be traded. I've said that 3 times in this paragraph, hopefully for emphasis.

Fantastic, we don't want or need him for Miller. Keep him and enjoy him, I sincerely hope he hits his potential as a Leaf.

 

[yegoldboysclub]

Would start as a 1st for sure,. Cant see Canucks interested in guys like Sandin or Robertson. Those guys are a dime a dozen players.

 

[seanlinden]

The point of selling JT Miller this season is to fill needs, the point of selling him next year is to accumulate assets, his value is high enough with the year and a half that we can say, we need to fill a positional need with this trade. Next year if we're in the same position it becomes more about accumulating assets.

I would agree that there doesn't seem to be a clear path, I do think there will be (already is) enough teams that would be able to offer more of what we need rather than good pieces that don't move the needle.

Again... will repeat.."selling" and "filling needs" are two competing goals; and generally do not happen in the same trade beyond the vague concept of "we need to get younger, we need prospects, we need picks, etc."

It's not a matter of "is his value high enough?" -- it's a matter of understanding that at the deadline, teams are either looking to add or looking to sell, they're generally not looking to "change the mix". "Hockey deals" really don't happen. Come offseason, maybe you find the right 1-for-1 swap for Miller, but even that's going to be tough given that he's a year away from UFA.

Ultimately, the Canucks have to look at JT Miller today, and ask themselves:

A. Is he a long term piece that we're going to re-sign? I suspect / believe the answer to that almost surely, no.

B. Do the Canucks believe they can turn things around this offseason? I wouldn't say it's 0%, but I think it's probably less than 50%.

Given that, the Canucks have two options. They can sell (not use to fill specific needs) him at this deadline, retain 50%; get themselves a 1st round pick in 2022, and get themselves an NHL-ready prospect and/or young player, and set their sights on how that package will put them in a much better position for 23-24. Alternatively, they can keep him, with the following possibilities towards what will happen:

- Team improves, battles and maybe makes it into the playoffs. Miller probably leaves.
- Canucks MAYBE find a "hockey trade" in the offseason.
- Team are still sellers come next year's deadline, Miller is not having as good a year, or is hurt, gets dealt for a 2023 2nd + a 2024 4th. Probably 2026-27 before you see anything out of those picks, if ever.
- Team are still sellers come next year's deadline, Miller's having an equally good year. You'll get a 1st & a prospect, but that first will be a year later, and that prospect is likely going to be younger given that teams generally shy away from trading young players for rentals. By the time those assets actually help you, Pettersson could very well be gone.

I'm not advocating for the original offer. Heck, if the Canucks think they can turn this thing around over the offseason, then don't trade him. But, as I'm sure the Canucks understand, and their fans need to understand, if they do decide to "tread water" for another year, the package they're going to get is not going to be as good / useful as if they were to commit to next year not being good, in an effort to build towards 23-24.

There's a lot of posters in this thread saying "we'll just keep him", or "would rather trade him elsewhere". Very few have actually suggested any sort of better vision / plan for what to do with Miller.

 

[seanlinden]

Would start as a 1st for sure,. Cant see Canucks interested in guys like Sandin or Robertson. Those guys are a dime a dozen players.

Who do you think the Canucks are going to be "interested in" on a JT Miller deal?

Doesn't have to be the Leafs -- just look around the league at some of the good teams that might be interested in Miller. Amongst the players they might be willing to give up, who do you really want?

A 1st round pick kind of goes without saying as the natural starting point.

I look at THW's top 100 prospect list (https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-top-100-prospects-ranking/), and you've gotta isolate that to A) teams that are buyers, and B) prospects that aren't "too good" to trade.

Amongst the top 40, I see 11 names that strike me as realistic pieces involved in a Miller deal... 3 of them belong to Toronto (Robertson, Amirov, Niemla), 3 of them belong to Edmonton (Bourgault & Holloway, Broberg), three of them belong to Dallas (Bourque, Stankoven, Harley), one to the Rangers (Othmann), and one to Calgary (Zary).

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Again... will repeat.."selling" and "filling needs" are two competing goals; and generally do not happen in the same trade beyond the vague concept of "we need to get younger, we need prospects, we need picks, etc."

It's not a matter of "is his value high enough?" -- it's a matter of understanding that at the deadline, teams are either looking to add or looking to sell, they're generally not looking to "change the mix". "Hockey deals" really don't happen. Come offseason, maybe you find the right 1-for-1 swap for Miller, but even that's going to be tough given that he's a year away from UFA.

Ultimately, the Canucks have to look at JT Miller today, and ask themselves:

A. Is he a long term piece that we're going to re-sign? I suspect / believe the answer to that almost surely, no.

B. Do the Canucks believe they can turn things around this offseason? I wouldn't say it's 0%, but I think it's probably less than 50%.

Given that, the Canucks have two options. They can sell (not use to fill specific needs) him at this deadline, retain 50%; get themselves a 1st round pick in 2022, and get themselves an NHL-ready prospect and/or young player, and set their sights on how that package will put them in a much better position for 23-24. Alternatively, they can keep him, with the following possibilities towards what will happen:

- Team improves, battles and maybe makes it into the playoffs. Miller probably leaves.
- Canucks MAYBE find a "hockey trade" in the offseason.
- Team are still sellers come next year's deadline, Miller is not having as good a year, or is hurt, gets dealt for a 2023 2nd + a 2024 4th. Probably 2026-27 before you see anything out of those picks, if ever.
- Team are still sellers come next year's deadline, Miller's having an equally good year. You'll get a 1st & a prospect, but that first will be a year later, and that prospect is likely going to be younger given that teams generally shy away from trading young players for rentals. By the time those assets actually help you, Pettersson could very well be gone.

I'm not advocating for the original offer. Heck, if the Canucks think they can turn this thing around over the offseason, then don't trade him. But, as I'm sure the Canucks understand, and their fans need to understand, if they do decide to "tread water" for another year, the package they're going to get is not going to be as good / useful as if they were to commit to next year not being good, in an effort to build towards 23-24.

There's a lot of posters in this thread saying "we'll just keep him", or "would rather trade him elsewhere". Very few have actually suggested any sort of better vision / plan for what to do with Miller.

Again given that he's not a rental, we can absolutely sell to fill a team need, you seem to be stuck in a box that this somehow isn't possible.

 

[seanlinden]

Again given that he's not a rental, we can absolutely sell to fill a team need, you seem to be stuck in a box that this somehow isn't possible.

Again, you've put sell and fill a need in the same sentence. I cannot re-iterate enough, the league does not work that way.

With deadline deals, there are buyers, and there are sellers. There is no in between. If you don't believe me, try yourself to come up with an example. Find what you think "fills your team needs", and ask yourself realistically, is that other team going to give you those pieces for JT Miller?

Come off-season, yes, those deals can occasionally get done... but they are EXTREMELY difficult to do and quite rare.... especially on players that only have a year left. Again, I'll challenge you -- come up with an example.

 

[settinguptheplay]

Again, you've put sell and fill a need in the same sentence. I cannot re-iterate enough, the league does not work that way.

With deadline deals, there are buyers, and there are sellers. There is no in between. If you don't believe me, try yourself to come up with an example. Find what you think "fills your team needs", and ask yourself realistically, is that other team going to give you those pieces for JT Miller?

Come off-season, yes, those deals can occasionally get done... but they are EXTREMELY difficult to do and quite rare.... especially on players that only have a year left. Again, I'll challenge you -- come up with an example.

Stop this BS. What tf do you mean the league does not work this way. A team is free to target whomever they like whether they are buyers or sellers. One can sell and seek a fit that fills a need. This can be done anytime trades are allowed.

You seem stuck on the idea that deadline deals are only about rentals and futures. Simply wrong. Any type of deal can be done at the deadline. Rentals, Long term contracts, targeted players, futures trades, veteran trades. Any type of trade you can think of.

Perhaps I am confused. Are you suggesting that a trade where the seller fills a need is rare? If so I don't think you will find a single person who agrees with that.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Again, you've put sell and fill a need in the same sentence. I cannot re-iterate enough, the league does not work that way.

With deadline deals, there are buyers, and there are sellers. There is no in between. If you don't believe me, try yourself to come up with an example. Find what you think "fills your team needs", and ask yourself realistically, is that other team going to give you those pieces for JT Miller?

Come off-season, yes, those deals can occasionally get done... but they are EXTREMELY difficult to do and quite rare.... especially on players that only have a year left. Again, I'll challenge you -- come up with an example.

Seth Jones for Ryan Johansen

Patches to the Knights

Karlsson to the Sharks

All filled team needs especially the first one.

 

[seanlinden]

Stop this BS. What tf do you mean the league does not work this way. A team is free to target whomever they like whether they are buyers or sellers. One can sell and seek a fit that fills a need. This can be done anytime trades are allowed.

You seem stuck on the idea that deadline deals are only about rentals and futures. Simply wrong. Any type of deal can be done at the deadline. Rentals, Long term contracts, targeted players, futures trades, veteran trades. Any type of trade you can think of.

Perhaps I am confused. Are you suggesting that a trade where the seller fills a need is rare? If so I don't think you will find a single person who agrees with that.

No BS -- only reality.

Either you're "targetting" (i.e. I need a right shot, top 4, physical defender), and ask the team that has one "what's it gonna take?"...the chances of JT Miller being the answer to that question is extremely low... simply because the team that has that defenceman they're willing to move, probably isn't after a player with a 1.25 season shelf-life.

Alternatively, you're selling, and asking teams to come up with the best offer of futures. The team that does so for a player with 1.25 seasons left on his deal is not going to want to give up currently contributing roster players. They want to add without subtracting.

If you think I'm wrong, then PLEASE, come up with an example of a trade that you think makes sense where the Canucks "fill their needs" using JT Miller. I've asked several fans in this thread to do so, and nobody seems to be able to.

 

[settinguptheplay]

Seth Jones for Ryan Johansen

Patches to the Knights

Karlsson to the Sharks

All filled team needs especially the first one.

Maybe it would be easier to flip the script.

The Canucks are not sellers. They are buyers and we have Miller as currency to buy and fill a team need. I wonder if that would get through to him. I mean, I kinda get what he means. A deadline seller often will take assets instead of filling specific needs. But Miller is not a deadline deal. It is not an expiring contract. At the deadline next year I am sure the Canucks would be far more willing to take an asset driven package. But there is ZERO reason to do that this year.

 

[seanlinden]

Seth Jones for Ryan Johansen

Patches to the Knights

Karlsson to the Sharks

All filled team needs especially the first one.

The Seth Jones - Ryan Johanssen trade is a VERY RARE one... especially for in-season. So much so that you had to go all the way back to 2016 to get it. It's also worth noting that these were 2 struggling young potential superstars at the time. Both teams had "lots of runway" years of control to build around these franchise-altering trades.

Montreal got futures and Tomas Tatar for Pacioretty. Yes, one of those futures turned out to be their current #1C in Nick Suzuki. That's what every team hopes for when they take on picks/prospects.

Ottawa got Dylan DeMelo, Chris Tierney and futures for Erik Karlsson. Yes, those futures turned out into Josh Norris & Tim Stutzle, and again that's what you hope for when trading for futures.

How about trying to come up with an example that would make sense for the Canucks, and some other team, this year?

 

[seanlinden]

Maybe it would be easier to flip the script.

The Canucks are not sellers. They are buyers and we have Miller as currency to buy and fill a team need. I wonder if that would get through to him. I mean, I kinda get what he means. A deadline seller often will take assets instead of filling specific needs. But Miller is not a deadline deal. It is not an expiring contract. At the deadline next year I am sure the Canucks would be far more willing to take an asset driven package. But there is ZERO reason to do that this year.

Buyers don't use their best player. That is completely against "the script", or how the league works.

So your good idea is to wait /waste a year, and ensure that the pieces you get are further away from helping?

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

No BS -- only reality.

Either you're "targetting" (i.e. I need a right shot, top 4, physical defender), and ask the team that has one "what's it gonna take?"...the chances of JT Miller being the answer to that question is extremely low... simply because the team that has that defenceman they're willing to move, probably isn't after a player with a 1.25 season shelf-life.

Alternatively, you're selling, and asking teams to come up with the best offer of futures. The team that does so for a player with 1.25 seasons left on his deal is not going to want to give up currently contributing roster players. They want to add without subtracting.

If you think I'm wrong, then PLEASE, come up with an example of a trade that you think makes sense where the Canucks "fill their needs" using JT Miller. I've asked several fans in this thread to do so, and nobody seems to be able to.

From the Av's Helleson, Barron and a 1st, that would fill a team need more than the Leafs offer and just one example, want more?

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

The Seth Jones - Ryan Johanssen trade is a VERY RARE one... especially for in-season. So much so that you had to go all the way back to 2016 to get it. It's also worth noting that these were 2 struggling young potential superstars at the time. Both teams had "lots of runway" years of control to build around these franchise-altering trades.

Montreal got futures and Tomas Tatar for Pacioretty. Yes, one of those futures turned out to be their current #1C in Nick Suzuki. That's what every team hopes for when they take on picks/prospects.

Ottawa got Dylan DeMelo, Chris Tierney and futures for Erik Karlsson. Yes, those futures turned out into Josh Norris & Tim Stutzle, and again that's what you hope for when trading for futures.

How about trying to come up with an example that would make sense for the Canucks, and some other team, this year?

You asked for an example, I gave you one, you made it seem like it doesn't happen, clearly it does.

Montreal got exactly what they wanted in a top C prospect, did that not fill a team need?

Ottawa because of ineptitude in Management, needed to load up on those specific futures to make up for the Duchene debacle, does that not fill a team need?

I gave you an example too, look up.

 

[Matthews4Calder]

No thanks.

 

[settinguptheplay]

From the Av's Helleson, Barron and a 1st, that would fill a team need more than the Leafs offer and just one example, want more?

He will never get it. He is not even trying to understand. 100% defensive reaction mode.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Buyers don't use their best player. That is completely against "the script", or how the league works.

So your good idea is to wait /waste a year, and ensure that the pieces you get are further away from helping?

Ottawa was a buyer for Duchene they used an unprotected 1st to get him, Vegas used a top prospect in Suzuki, so is it really against the script?

The Canucks used an unprotected 1st to get Miller, another example.

 

[seanlinden]

You asked for an example, I gave you one, you made it seem like it doesn't happen, clearly it does.

Montreal got exactly what they wanted in a top C prospect, did that not fill a team need?

Ottawa because of ineptitude in Management, needed to load up on those specific futures to make up for the Duchene debacle, does that not fill a team need?

I gave you an example too, look up.

I asked for an example of a deal that you think is realistic today.

Montreal & Ottawa "needed" futures -- they got them. As I mentioned, if your "need" is as generic as "we need to get younger", or "we need futures", or "we need prospects" or "we need picks", then yes, you'll fill a need when selling because that's what gets sellers generally get paid in.

From the Av's Helleson, Barron and a 1st, that would fill a team need more than the Leafs offer and just one example, want more?

Thank you.... now let's examine that package.

1. That first isn't going to be this year, because that belongs to the Coyotes.

2. Drew Helleson didn't crack the top 100 prospects by THW... is that really what you want to "make sure you don't miss" on?

3. Justin Barron made it all the way to 81 on that said list. Better than Helleson, yes -- but again, really what you want to bank your future on?

Ultimately, both the Leafs offer and this Avs offer only go towards "filling the need" of adding futures, with Toronto delivering better prospects that are closer to contributing today.

The reality is, by the time (if ever) Barron or Helleson sniff making real contributions at the NHL level, the Canucks may not even need a right shot defenceman.

Ottawa was a buyer for Duchene they used an unprotected 1st to get him, Vegas used a top prospect in Suzuki, so is it really against the script?

The Canucks used an unprotected 1st to get Miller, another example.

The Sens didn't go out and say "we want to trade our 1st round pick, what can we get?". The Sens went out and said "we want matt duchene, here's the best package of futures we've got for him.

Same for Vegas and Vancouver buying Pacioretty & Miller... all about futures, and just what "level" of futures the player is able to command.

That's why when you hear about big name players being shopped... "the ask is a 1st round pick, top prospect, young roster player, and another pick or prospect". When teams are bad / selling, they maximize value, figure out how all the pieces fit together once they know what they have in terms of NHL players.

 

[patriotfan]

No late first, and no other players. So in your mind Kerfoot for Miller is fair?

Kerfoot has been a cap dump for years, and one year playing with players way out of his league doesn't boost his value.

i didn't say a miller for kerfoot straight up, all i said is the he would replace miller on all areas accept in the scoring, but now that he plays up in the lineup he puts up reasonable points and as far as being given away on any trade by brainless leafs fans well that's another story on its on, but yes kerfoot plus lets say a 2nd and a top prospect like robertson is pretty fair, but then again i am not the GM of the leafs...

 

[patriotfan]

A VERY late first and not a single player of Miller’s caliber. Come back when you have a reasonable offer

The way i see it i would do a 2nd kerfoot robertson and ritchie to belance the salary issues, but i would rather take a crack at sheeifle sorry for the mispell of the jets i hear he might be available.....

 

[patriotfan]

Why would the leafs be trading for a forward? A defence man is what they need for the playoffs.

i hear you bud and agree with you leafs need a hardcore dman..... not a forward

 

[patriotfan]

As has already been explained his numbers are inflated from playing on the leafs.

Kerfoot would not be on the top line here as he really isn't any better then what we have in our top 6 now.

Tanner Pearson would have 30 points on that Leafs team and nobody would call him a top line player.

Calling Kerfoot one "on this Canucks team" based on point totals is disingenuous and completely ignores context.

yep a canuck fan that sounds like a hab fan and thinks all their players are the best and worth the most.....

 

[Three On Zero]

The way i see it i would do a 2nd kerfoot robertson and ritchie to belance the salary issues, but i would rather take a crack at sheeifle sorry for the mispell of the jets i hear he might be available.....

Worse than original offer, still a no

 

[patriotfan]

Worse than original offer, still a no

no deal with the canucks as you don't have the dman that we need...

 

[Three On Zero]

no deal with the canucks as you don't have the dman that we need...

Likewise, honestly just two incompatible trading partners at this time.