Value of: Miller to wild

[Dr Jan Itor]

1 - he was a free agent and wasn't re-signing in Ottawa
2 - At the time Brannstrom was seen as an elite RHD prospect (another reason why gambling solely on a prospect to hit their peak potential is a massive risk). Brannstrom was a better prospect than Addison for example.
3 - and I'm just being picky here because I think Stone is the better player, but Stone didn't have 2 consecutive ppg seasons prior to the season he was traded.

That trade looks terrible for the Sens so that's a great example of why you need to get better assets in trades for your top players - so if that's the value offered for Miller you don't trade him.

Neither will Miller, unless I'm missing something.

 

[Boondock]

Neither will Miller, unless I'm missing something.

0.97ppg - is that better? we're rounding up to the closest thousandths now?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

0.97ppg - is that better? we're rounding up to the closest thousandths now?

If we're being picky, might as well be picky both ways.

I mean, I guess we can make the cutoff whatever we want to serve whatever argument we want:

In JT Miller's Vancouver time, he's 0.951 ppg in 144 games. In Mark Stone's last 3 seasons before being traded, he was 0.947 ppg in 188 games.

I'm not sure why 2 seasons ago is more important than the season that they were traded in.

 

[Boondock]

If we're being picky, might as well be picky both ways.

I mean, I guess we can make the cutoff whatever we want to serve whatever argument we want:

In JT Miller's Vancouver time, he's 0.951 ppg in 144 games. In Mark Stone's last 3 seasons before being traded, he was 0.947 ppg in 188 games.

I'm not sure why 2 seasons ago is more important than the season that they were traded in.

Sure comparable stats - different cap, contract status and situation (UFA not re-signing in Ottawa). And I think it would be universally accepted that that was a bad trade for the Sens. So the Canucks should definitely not be using the Stone template for any Miller trade. The Stone trade is actually a very good justification to ask for more in a Miller trade.

 

[AKL]

Sure comparable stats - different cap, contract status and situation (UFA not re-signing in Ottawa). And I think it would be universally accepted that that was a bad trade for the Sens. So the Canucks should definitely not be using the Stone template for any Miller trade. The Stone trade is actually a very good justification to ask for more in a Miller trade.

You keep saying these trades are a justification for asking more, which is fine, but it's also pretty solid evidence that you're just not going to get it. Maybe he gets a little extra for the extra year he has, but it's not like he's going to re-sign with the team he's traded to (which is another point you keep trying to emphasize), so he's still a rental, he's just a rental with an extra playoff run.

 

[Boondock]

You keep saying these trades are a justification for asking more, which is fine, but it's also pretty solid evidence that you're just not going to get it. Maybe he gets a little extra for the extra year he has, but it's not like he's going to re-sign with the team he's traded to (which is another point you keep trying to emphasize), so he's still a rental, he's just a rental with playoff run.

???? I do? Where?

 

[AKL]

???? I do? Where?

You have, across multiple posts, emphasized guys not re-signing as reasons for Miller to get more than they did.

Here:

Sure comparable stats - different cap, contract status and situation (UFA not re-signing in Ottawa). And I think it would be universally accepted that that was a bad trade for the Sens. So the Canucks should definitely not be using the Stone template for any Miller trade. The Stone trade is actually a very good justification to ask for more in a Miller trade.

Here:

1 - he was a free agent and wasn't re-signing in Ottawa
2 - At the time Brannstrom was seen as an elite RHD prospect (another reason why gambling solely on a prospect to hit their peak potential is a massive risk). Brannstrom was a better prospect than Addison for example.
3 - and I'm just being picky here because I think Stone is the better player, but Stone didn't have 2 consecutive ppg seasons prior to the season he was traded.

That trade looks terrible for the Sens so that's a great example of why you need to get better assets in trades for your top players - so if that's the value offered for Miller you don't trade him.

Here:

My reasons were $8.0 million contract, rental that said he was going to test free agency, a full NMC and not being a ppg player from 3 seasons. So....point still stands.

 

[Boondock]

You keep saying these trades are a justification for asking more, which is fine, but it's also pretty solid evidence that you're just not going to get it. Maybe he gets a little extra for the extra year he has, but it's not like he's going to re-sign with the team he's traded to (which is another point you keep trying to emphasize), so he's still a rental, he's just a rental with playoff run.

Thats not the way it works. A rental is a player with an expiring contract that a team will only have for the last 10-12 games of the season and whatever playoff games the team has. A player with an entire additi0nal season is not a rental. Teams have the entire year to negotiate and the option to trade again at the next TDL if they want to re-coup assets.
I guess every player is a rental some are just longer term rentals?

 

[AKL]

Thats not the way it works. A rental is a player with an expiring contract that a team will only have for the last 10-12 games of the season and whatever playoff games the team has. A player with an entire additi0nal season is not a rental. Teams have the entire year to negotiate and the option to trade again at the next TDL if they want to re-coup assets.
I guess every player is a rental some are just longer term rentals?

So the team will have him for, at most, 18 months, Miller likely has no intention of re-signing, and if the team can't make it work they can get rid of him in a year? That sure sounds like they're renting him.

 

[Boondock]

You keep saying these trades are a justification for asking more, which is fine, but it's also pretty solid evidence that you're just not going to get it. Maybe he gets a little extra for the extra year he has, but it's not like he's going to re-sign with the team he's traded to (which is another point you keep trying to emphasize), so he's still a rental, he's just a rental with an extra playoff run.

You have, across multiple posts, emphasized guys not re-signing as reasons for Miller to get more than they did.

Here:


Here:


Here:

You stated that I was emphasizing that Miller would re-sign with whomever he was traded to. No I did not.

Stone was in his final year of his contract and both the organization and the player had come out prior to the trade deadline to say that he would not be re-signing in Ottawa and he would be testing the free agent market. Stone also took a 1 year deal in the offseason to intentionally walk himself right to UFA status. Miller still has another year on top of this under contract - that is a big difference. Ottawa had to move Stone or lose him for nothing, Vancouver doesn't have to move Miller - that's a big difference. I pointed out the difference in contract status - this is a fact, you seem to think there's a lot more being emphasized as seen in the bolded.

 

[AKL]

You stated that I was emphasizing that Miller would re-sign with whomever he was traded to.

No I did not.

 

[bossram]

Whatever the reasons why people don't want to trade for Miller, it mostly boils down to not wanting/caring about an extremely short-term solution. If we traded for Miller today, we're pretty sure that we're not going to have him for the next 6-7 seasons, let alone even just the 2022-23 season.

The names and ceilings of the prospects almost don't even matter. If there's a whiff of top 6 or top 4 ability, it's not something that we're going to be easy to let go of for 1 playoff run. Which is why guys like Khusnutdinov and Addison, even though they're no Boldy/Rossi/Lambos, get grouped in with them.

These are reasonable reasons to not want to trade for Miller (long-term cap implications, prospect depth, etc.).

I'm arguing with guys who are claiming Khus is an A prospect and pretty much untradeable. Umm, alright then.

 

[Boondock]

You keep saying these trades are a justification for asking more, which is fine, but it's also pretty solid evidence that you're just not going to get it. Maybe he gets a little extra for the extra year he has, but it's not like he's going to re-sign with the team he's traded to (which is another point you keep trying to emphasize), so he's still a rental, he's just a rental with an extra playoff run.

No I did not.

Oh..........okay.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

These are reasonable reasons to not want to trade for Miller (long-term cap implications, prospect depth, etc.).

I'm arguing with guys who are claiming Khus is an A prospect and pretty much untradeable. Umm, alright then.

"Untradeable" is such a finite word that gets tossed around way too much, but there's a decent chance that we're going to need 5-6 ELC contracts in our lineup during the 2023-24 through 2024-25 seasons; and as of now, Khusnutdinov is probably penciled into one of those spots, depending on burned contract years and all that.

 

[AKL]

These are reasonable reasons to not want to trade for Miller (long-term cap implications, prospect depth, etc.).

I'm arguing with guys who are claiming Khus is an A prospect and pretty much untradeable. Umm, alright then.

"Untradeable" is such a finite word that gets tossed around way too much, but there's a decent chance that we're going to need 5-6 ELC contracts in our lineup during the 2023-24 through 2024-25 seasons; and as of now, Khusnutdinov is probably penciled into one of those spots, depending on burned contract years and all that.

No prospects are untradeable, but in the context of JT Miller and only having 1.5 years left on his contract, guys like Khusnutdinov and Beckman are probably not very available. The whole "A vs A- vs B+ vs B prospect" conversation is pointless, because everyone has their own opinions, and even if people do agree on the label, it doesn't mean anything in terms of his availability or value in a trade.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

No prospects are untradeable, but in the context of JT Miller and only having 1.5 years left on his contract, guys like Khusnutdinov and Beckman are probably not very available. The whole "A vs A- vs B+ vs B prospect" conversation is pointless, because everyone has their own opinions, and even if people do agree on the label, it doesn't mean anything in terms of his availability or value in a trade.

Greenway + 1st (protected) + Addison + Rask (20% ret) for Miller is probably something I'd do as long as I was confident in getting something close to 1st + Addison for Miller at the draft.

Call up Boldy and think that it could be a pretty fun team to watch for the rest of the year and probably raise the ceiling on the year at least a little bit.

 

[Nucker42]

Eichel's market did set the value and it should tell you that disgruntled players aren't going to get much. But, fiala and miller are equal. Minnesota isn't going to make a trade with sending 1st round pick out , when that late 1st was what they used to select jasper wallstedt. This 2022 draft is the best in a long long while. Calen addison was specifically asked for by the gm when Zucker was traded. Sorry, but you can keep Ht , and Minnesota can go after Tomas H instead

I appreciate the sentiment but you’re not getting Miller or Hertl for any package that doesn’t include a 1st. But good luck!!

 

[rynryn]

absolutely not making fun of any obstinance here or judging anyone's ability to value their players but how long do you take calls for the "right" offer if you're GM in this situation? Content to just keep playing him if the season keeps going the way it is and risk other GMs withdrawing their original offers? Hold out and hope for higher offers if teams look like they're getting into injury trouble for their playoff pushes? Outside of teams getting into injury problems or making other trades where acquiring a replacement for that position is necessary doesn't his value go down the further we go along? If he's not a rental now, he will be this off-season if it's been determined he wants to test free agency--i'm not sure about that point, as i couldn't quite follow the argument above about it.

 

[AKL]

absolutely not making fun of any obstinance here or judging anyone's ability to value their players but how long do you take calls for the "right" offer if you're GM in this situation? Content to just keep playing him if the season keeps going the way it is and risk other GMs withdrawing their original offers? Hold out and hope for higher offers if teams look like they're getting into injury trouble for their playoff pushes? Outside of teams getting into injury problems or making other trades where acquiring a replacement for that position is necessary doesn't his value go down the further we go along? If he's not a rental now, he will be this off-season if it's been determined he wants to test free agency--i'm not sure about that point, as i couldn't quite follow the argument above about it.

Well apparently the big sell with Miller, the reason he's apparently worth a top blue chip prospect+, is that he's got a year left on his contract, so they can take calls for the right offer for about 3-4 months. After that I suppose he becomes just like any other disgruntled rental whose team is actively trying to move him.

 

[McJedi]

Greenway + 1st (protected) + Addison + Rask (20% ret) for Miller is probably something I'd do as long as I was confident in getting something close to 1st + Addison for Miller at the draft.

Call up Boldy and think that it could be a pretty fun team to watch for the rest of the year and probably raise the ceiling on the year at least a little bit.

Seems pretty reasonable if no retention on Rask. Greenway is struggling but has some ability.

nothing really exciting in the proposal for Vancouver by the sum of the parts add up to decent value.

 

[Boondock]

absolutely not making fun of any obstinance here or judging anyone's ability to value their players but how long do you take calls for the "right" offer if you're GM in this situation? Content to just keep playing him if the season keeps going the way it is and risk other GMs withdrawing their original offers? Hold out and hope for higher offers if teams look like they're getting into injury trouble for their playoff pushes? Outside of teams getting into injury problems or making other trades where acquiring a replacement for that position is necessary doesn't his value go down the further we go along? If he's not a rental now, he will be this off-season if it's been determined he wants to test free agency--i'm not sure about that point, as i couldn't quite follow the argument above about it.

There is no evidence that Miller is being shopped or even considered for a trade really. This is the assumption of fans and media because of the tire fire of a season so far and Miller is the oldest "core" piece and he wasn't drafted by the Canucks so fans seem to be less invested in players they haven't been following since their draft day. Right now Miller is the only forward producing at the level they need from their top line so there is an argument that trading him sends the wrong message to the team and fan base. As for the re-signing - he is still 6 months away from being able to discuss being re-signed, anyone claiming to have info on whether he wants to re-sign or not is making assumptions based on fan reactions - there is zero actual knowledge by anyone on HFb . Canucks management has said they are "being patient" which loosely translate to "Stupid". So your - how long question is almost impossible to answer without more info.

 

[Sota Popinski]

1 - he was a free agent and wasn't re-signing in Ottawa
2 - At the time Brannstrom was seen as an elite RHD prospect (another reason why gambling solely on a prospect to hit their peak potential is a massive risk). Brannstrom was a better prospect than Addison for example.
3 - and I'm just being picky here because I think Stone is the better player, but Stone didn't have 2 consecutive ppg seasons prior to the season he was traded.

That trade looks terrible for the Sens so that's a great example of why you need to get better assets in trades for your top players - so if that's the value offered for Miller you don't trade him.

1. He was traded with an extension in place
2. At the time, some of the bloom had already come off Brannstrom's rose. He was not an elite prospect.
3. Stone had 62 points in 59 games and 62 points in 58 games in his last two seasons with Ottawa. Over a PPG. JT Miller has 137 points in 144 games. That's under a PPG.
No matter who I named you could pull out that crap excuse that it was a bad trade. Who cares?

 

[Sota Popinski]

Sure comparable stats - different cap, contract status and situation (UFA not re-signing in Ottawa). And I think it would be universally accepted that that was a bad trade for the Sens. So the Canucks should definitely not be using the Stone template for any Miller trade. The Stone trade is actually a very good justification to ask for more in a Miller trade.

JT Miller is not in the same stratosphere as Mark Stone. Stone is an MVP level player. Miller is a borderline all-star.

 

[rynryn]

There is no evidence that Miller is being shopped or even considered for a trade really. This is the assumption of fans and media because of the tire fire of a season so far and Miller is the oldest "core" piece and he wasn't drafted by the Canucks so fans seem to be less invested in players they haven't been following since their draft day. Right now Miller is the only forward producing at the level they need from their top line so there is an argument that trading him sends the wrong message to the team and fan base. As for the re-signing - he is still 6 months away from being able to discuss being re-signed, anyone claiming to have info on whether he wants to re-sign or not is making assumptions based on fan reactions - there is zero actual knowledge by anyone on HFb . Canucks management has said they are "being patient" which loosely translate to "Stupid". So your - how long question is almost impossible to answer without more info.

thanks. fresh off the Parise and Suter "where there's smoke, there's fire" situation it's pretty easy to believe team disfunction/player dissatisfaction is going to force a trade as a default position. In the past our GM was talking about culture change, and we had a player kind of shift the blame, and it was pretty easy to follow that roadmap to it's conclusion. Different situations entirely, I know, but the tangible benefits of "culture change" Wild see are ... Pretty tangible. If there's no hint of disfunction there or he's not perceived to be one of the causes (as Suter was) I can see why keeping him and hoping a change further up the org chain will pay off is the safe bet.

 

[EP to Kuzmenko]

Sure comparable stats - different cap, contract status and situation (UFA not re-signing in Ottawa). And I think it would be universally accepted that that was a bad trade for the Sens. So the Canucks should definitely not be using the Stone template for any Miller trade. The Stone trade is actually a very good justification to ask for more in a Miller trade.

Hindsight is 20/20

Brannstrom was seen as top prospect not much different than Boldy at the time in terms of value. And they added a 2nd to him for 1 year and a higher cap hit.