Management Discussion | You can’t handle the Rebuild!

[m9]

Totally agree with that, it’s almost guaranteed that he will not be worth it like 4 years into his extension.

I guess the question is, how many inefficient contracts can you have before it becomes a blocker for you to be a contender and also are there outs built into that contract so it makes it easier to trade around then.

I think getting 3-4 efficient years out of that contract is basically the best-case scenario. If you could guarantee me 3 right now I'd take it.

 

[gringo]

PPG Wingers that aren't good defensively don't get paid that much money.

Sure they do

 

[TruGr1t]

Why would it be risky? It was necessary.

Retain 50% on both of those contracts at the deadline and you get a king's ransom. It's like a combined 5mil cap hit for 2 first line players.

It would've been the perfect start to a rebuild or possibly sped it up into a retool with all of the assets aquired.

Injury for one, but there are a number of tail risks associated with that strategy involving the market for the players, their performance, and the return. It also creates the possibility, however remote, that one or both will walk for nothing (which admittedly in Miller's case may have been preferable at this point, but it certainly didn't look that way at the time).

 

[Melvin]

Speaking of @Melvin, I'd be curious to hear whether he thinks Miller has negative trade value because I think a month or two ago he said that he thought fans were overreacting by suggesting that he might.

I don't think he has negative value but I'd be willing to be convinced that he does.

I don't think he has particularly high positive value (and never did,) but his contract is more or less market rate. It's what I'd expect him to get as a UFA, more or less.

I made this argument on Twitter but people let the quality of the team impact how they view contract value, and it really shouldn't. I haven't heard anyone argue that Mika Zibanejad, for example, is "negative value." If the Canucks were actually a good team, nobody would say it about Miller either.

Negative value means that a contract is overpaid to the extent that a team who wishes to trade it would have to pay to get rid of it rather than actually get something in return. I am not convinced that Miller's contract is there, nor Mika's.

Now, do I think Miller would return particularly much in a trade? Not necessarily, but "low value" is not the same thing as "negative value."

I think, cap space issues aside, teams would pay something to acquire Miller's contract. That makes it positive value, albeit potentially rather low value.

Again, I'd be willing to be convinced but I haven't really seen the evidence.

 

[TruGr1t]

I don't think he has negative value but I'd be willing to be convinced that he does.

I don't think he has particularly high positive value (and never did,) but his contract is more or less market rate. It's what I'd expect him to get as a UFA, more or less.

I made this argument on Twitter but people let the quality of the team impact how they view contract value, and it really shouldn't. I haven't heard anyone argue that Mika Zibanejad, for example, is "negative value." If the Canucks were actually a good team, nobody would say it about Miller either.

Negative value means that a contract is overpaid to the extent that a team who wishes to trade it would have to pay to get rid of it rather than actually get something in return. I am not convinced that Miller's contract is there, nor Mika's.

Now, do I think Miller would return particularly much in a trade? Not necessarily, but "low value" is not the same thing as "negative value."

I think, cap space issues aside, teams would pay something to acquire Miller's contract. That makes it positive value, albeit potentially rather low value.

Again, I'd be willing to be convinced but I haven't really seen the evidence.

I mean "cap space" aside doesn't really work. If the Canucks want to trade the salary out without let's say 70%+ of it coming back I think he'd have a negative value unless they retained the equivalent in salary the other team would be looking to ship back.

I guess that's not to say he has negative value if the asset coming back at 70% salary is a serviceable NHL player on a shorter term, but low-value works.

 

[Melvin]

I mean "cap space" aside doesn't really work. If the Canucks want to trade the salary out without let's say 70%+ of it coming back I think he'd have a negative value unless they retained the equivalent in salary the other team would be looking to ship back.

Well I mean, you can't say that Connor McDavid's contract has "negative value" just because most teams can't just add 10.5M in salary, you know what I mean? Of course a team's cap situation is going to be a huge factor in their willingness to trade for Miller, but I think that's a separate issue from the negative/positive value discourse. Also where a team is at in the success cycle is also going to be a factor, obviously, as is their roster construction. These are all separate (and important) factors aside from the contract value.

My point is that, if a contending team has the capspace and the roster fit to trade for Miller, I think they would likely be happy to take on Miller's contract. Arguing that they wouldn't is the same as arguing that Miller as a UFA would not get that contract, which I just don't believe.

 

[TruGr1t]

Well I mean, you can't say that Connor McDavid's contract has "negative value" just because most teams can't just add 10.5M in salary, you know what I mean? Of course a team's cap situation is going to be a huge factor in their willingness to trade for Miller, but I think that's a separate issue from the negative/positive value discourse. Also where a team is at in the success cycle is also going to be a factor, obviously, as is their roster construction. These are all separate (and important) factors aside from the contract value.

My point is that, if a contending team has the capspace and the roster fit to trade for Miller, I think they would likely be happy to take on Miller's contract. Arguing that they wouldn't is the same as arguing that Miller as a UFA would not get that contract, which I just don't believe.

I see what you're saying, and I agree he wouldn't have gotten that contract in free agency. I think he's definitely still a valuable player, I do question how willing any team would be to take him on not just because of the cap hit, but probably even more so because of the contract length. At this point, you might be swallowing up to 4 bad years, but yeah if you're going for it I guess you sort that out later.

 

[pitseleh]

Arguing that they wouldn't is the same as arguing that Miller as a UFA would not get that contract, which I just don't believe.

If Miller were going into UFA with his body of work so far this season continued over the whole season, I think there’s a decent chance he’d have a hard time getting the same contract he just got. He’s basically been a PP specialist who can’t play centre this year and is on the wrong side of the aging curve. The overall trend would make last season look more like a blip given his play during the bubble year. Teams not wanting to take that risk now could make his contract negative value.

Edit: For what it’s worth, the Athletic’s player cards peg his projected market value based on his numbers this season at $6.7 million. Last year he was closer to $9 million. 7x$8 million implies you should get a lot more than $8 million in value the first three years or so.

 

[pitseleh]

I don't even think this is the argument. The salary cap is the argument. Even if you believe Pettersson, Demko and Hughes are the "core" you can win a Cup with (I don't really believe it, but could possibly be sold on it with effectively an "elite" supporting cast), the time to take a run with them was over the past 3-4 years.

You quite simply cannot pull off what management wants to pull off with a moribund farm system, no contributors on ELCs, and basically your entire core maturing into full contract value. You just can't.

Since you have no real trade assets of value outside of Horvat (who moving will actually hurt more than help the team in the near-term), you are by definition trying to build the supporting cast through free agency, and by surfing the bargain bin for cast-offs from other teams with some upside. The probability of this working isn't zero, but it's close.

Even if it works, you probably top-out at a budget version of the WCE-era Canucks.

This is bang on. You can win with a subpar supporting cast if you have elite top end talent, or you can win with a good but not outstanding top end players by efficiently spending on the rest of the roster. The Canucks have neither elite top end talent or efficient spending throughout their roster.

Management has set the team down a path where they need to bat .400 to build a winning team, and people are arguing whether they are batting .250 or .300.

 

[Melvin]

If Miller were going into UFA with his body of work so far this season continued over the whole season, I think there’s a decent chance he’d have a hard time getting the same contract he just got. He’s basically been a PP specialist who can’t play centre this year and is on the wrong side of the aging curve. The overall trend would make last season look more like a blip given his play during the bubble year. Teams not wanting to take that risk now could make his contract negative value.

Edit: For what it’s worth, the Athletic’s player cards peg his projected market value based on his numbers this season at $6.7 million. Last year he was closer to $9 million. 7x$8 million implies you should get a lot more than $8 million in value the first three years or so.

Fair. I'm comfortable saying that if this year's half-season is 7M and last year's full season is 9M, then 8M is probably roughly market value, but it is close, and it's unclear if any team would want the term.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Still waiting to find out when Benning is going to release his tell all, pop up/colouring book.

 

[Diogenes92]

Injury for one, but there are a number of tail risks associated with that strategy involving the market for the players, their performance, and the return. It also creates the possibility, however remote, that one or both will walk for nothing (which admittedly in Miller's case may have been preferable at this point, but it certainly didn't look that way at the time).

Canucks would be way better off if they hadn't resigned him. That much is obvious.

 

[TruGr1t]

Canucks would be way better off if they hadn't resigned him. That much is obvious.

I don’t disagree, but in my mind assuming they’d go into this season with both Miller and Horvat unsigned is not a reasonable assumption. The bigger issue is they chose the worst option out of three available to them (trade both, sign Miller, or sign Horvat).

 

[Diogenes92]

I don’t disagree, but in my mind assuming they’d go into this season with both Miller and Horvat unsigned is not a reasonable assumption. The bigger issue is they chose the worst option out of three available to them (trade both, sign Miller, or sign Horvat).

It's a moot point because management believed they were a playoff team and would have never considered trading both anyways.

 

[credulous]

if they didn't sign miller on orders from ownership they did it because they got spooked that horvat was serious about getting out of town and couldn't stomach losing both of them. they gave up on signing horvat the minute they offered miller that contract

 

[Hit the post]

Still waiting to find out when Benning is going to release his tell all, pop up/colouring book.

Jim Weisbrod has a "scratch and sniff" book coming out. And you can scratch *anywhere*.

 

[me2]

Where will the cap be then? I think he will be much lower than 40th that is for sure. Hell I think there is a very good chance Bo passes him on that list.

I didn't want to sign him, but I think some of the narrative is just false.

That old but of "Loui Eriksson" wisdom

 

[racerjoe]

That old but of "Loui Eriksson" wisdom

The old ask a question that can't be answered honestly than complain about it.

 

[iceburg]

I don’t think Miller was traded for 2 reasons:

1) He didn’t have the value he thought he had. Teams just aren’t going to give us young defencemen, top defensive prospects, or good young roster players. Taking a step back isn’t and taking the best futures package isn’t an option either. We really should of been retaining as well.

2) They thought the last 50-60 games of last season was the “real Canucks” and ignored that this group has maybe played like a playoff team like 50% of the previous 3 seasons. A lot of that was from goaltending as well. That an inconsistent team with very few players that can play a 2way game are inconsistent again should surprise no one, but they were caught with their pants down.

It’s weird they were playing hardball with term and money but than they just gave in. I think you are right in that they didn’t want to lose him for nothing, but they also realized he wasn’t going to return what they hoped and didn’t want to take a futures package. So they just caved and gave the term that he wanted.

I think you've rightly outlined why they didn't trade him at the deadline or in the summer last year. At some point the switch was flipped and they decided to just sign him. This at least explains why they played hardball for a while then suddenly seemed to change. I think they knew all along what it was going to take to sign him but they weren't going to offer close to that until they fully explored the trade market.
Again, I don't think it was the right decision but I think it's what their process may have looked like internally.

 

[Hodgy]

Delete.

 

[Hodgy]

I think you've rightly outlined why they didn't trade him at the deadline or in the summer last year. At some point the switch was flipped and they decided to just sign him. This at least explains why they played hardball for a while then suddenly seemed to change. I think they knew all along what it was going to take to sign him but they weren't going to offer close to that until they fully explored the trade market.
Again, I don't think it was the right decision but I think it's what their process may have looked like internally.

That’s part of it, and certainly it’s why the Canucks ended up signing him when they did (I.e., the trade market wasn’t good) but the bigger impetus for when that contract was signed is that Miller and his agent, smartly, new they had to capitalize on Miller’s outlier season which was probably unrepeatable so the best case scenario for them was signing before this year. This is why they gave the Canucks an ultimatum in that they said Miller wouldn’t discuss signing once the season started which pressured the Canucks to sign him before the season started. This was a good gamble by Miller as it appears management was never seriously willing to trade him so they caved and signed Miller when his value was the highest.

Ironically, of course, the Canucks took the opposite bargaining position with Horvat which had absolutely destroyed their ability to sign him. Although admittedly, it’s hard to blame management on this since Horvat’s play has been entirely unpredictable.

 

[m9]

I'm not going to give management a free pass for much (and I hated the Miller signing) but this Horvat year just seems like bad luck as I don't know how you could have seen this year coming. I also don't even know if you get the same version of Horvat this year with a $50 million dollar contract in his back pocket.

I brought this up a couple of months ago and I haven't see it anywhere in media, but I do wonder if there is simply a "tagging" or payroll issue with Horvat's contract that is holding things up and they actually can't sign him. Media is always slow to pick up on these things as the team will keep it under wraps but they have to be really close to that number based on Miller's raise and their lack of cap flexibility. Very similar to the Anaheim/Silfverberg issue from a couple of years ago.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I brought this up a couple of months ago and I haven't see it anywhere in media, but I do wonder if there is simply a "tagging" or payroll issue with Horvat's contract that is holding things up and they actually can't sign him. Media is always slow to pick up on these things as the team will keep it under wraps but they have to be really close to that number based on Miller's raise and their lack of cap flexibility. Very similar to the Anaheim/Silfverberg issue from a couple of years ago.

I think it is definitely partly a payroll issue in that they have so much salary tied up in bad contracts that they can't justify to themselves overstepping what they feel Horvat is worth. If say Myers and OEL's contracts magically disappeared, Horvat is probably re-signed, albeit for an amount we'd probably all cringe at.

 

[iFan]

I think it is definitely partly a payroll issue in that they have so much salary tied up in bad contracts that they can't justify to themselves overstepping what they feel Horvat is worth. If say Myers and OEL's contracts magically disappeared, Horvat is probably re-signed, albeit for an amount we'd probably all cringe at.

I mean they could've let Boeser walk to free up the cap space to re-sign both Miller and Horvat, if re-signing both was what they wanted to do. We didn't have to rely on OEL or Myers disappearing from the books to re-sign both. The situation we're in is on this new management group with some very poor decisions they made. For sure Benning did his damage BUT this new group has only added to the damage and don't deserve a free pass on some very poor choices they made. They decided to let Horvat go for Boeser and should be held accountable for that.

 

[m9]

I think it is definitely partly a payroll issue in that they have so much salary tied up in bad contracts that they can't justify to themselves overstepping what they feel Horvat is worth. If say Myers and OEL's contracts magically disappeared, Horvat is probably re-signed, albeit for an amount we'd probably all cringe at.

What I'm saying is that I am unsure if they are even legally allowed to re-sign Horvat/Kuzmenko under the CBA right now given their salary cap allocation for next year. I haven't crunched the numbers and it's a very complicated formula but I'm going to assume they're really close to whatever the limit is because of the raise to Miller and the lack of any big UFA contracts falling off the books. Kuzmenko in particular would probably be a really difficult one to do right now.