Matt Rentfree
Registered User
Miller turned 24 a week ago. Can we please all calm the f*** down?
Post-Game Talk: Tkachuk? More like Tkasuck
- Thread starter Machinehead
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
I have never been high on miller. Physically yea, but always thought he was just dumb and doesnt read the game right.
Even his good year last year he made way to many mistakes. He just has the speed to make up for it.
He is like the anti fox. All physical no brains.
That is why inwould move hime if we can get a 2c that is his same age or younger. If the person has 1c potential even better.
This has nothing to do with just his boneheaded play last night. Bc he makes these mistakes or bad pinches all the time. Its a regular feature of his.
And truthfully, he sucks aonce he is in the zone. He only really shines when he is on the rush.
He might actually be better moving back to the wing. Right now he jist gets by bc of how well his physical atrributes shine and covers up his mental issues.
And we all know physical attributes dont last forever.
Even his good year last year he made way to many mistakes. He just has the speed to make up for it.
He is like the anti fox. All physical no brains.
That is why inwould move hime if we can get a 2c that is his same age or younger. If the person has 1c potential even better.
This has nothing to do with just his boneheaded play last night. Bc he makes these mistakes or bad pinches all the time. Its a regular feature of his.
And truthfully, he sucks aonce he is in the zone. He only really shines when he is on the rush.
He might actually be better moving back to the wing. Right now he jist gets by bc of how well his physical atrributes shine and covers up his mental issues.
And we all know physical attributes dont last forever.
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,838
- 12,976
Trouba I'm willing to move for the cap space. Literally if someone will just take him off our hands. I'll take a conditional 7th (though I do suspect there are suckers out there who will give us a late first for him, if you can find the sucker who has cap space and the made-up "need" for a "physical" defenseman).
Miller is frustrating that he hasn't taken the next step, but, if you move him it has to be for a hockey trade.
I'm inclined to keep waiting with Miller. And maybe try him next to someone whose metrics aren't worse than his own.
While simply dumping Trouba and Goodrow are wins themselves, if you are trading guys who were supposed to be part of your long term core like Miller, Lindgren, and Kakko, you HAVE to win those transactions in terms of the value you get back, or you are just committing suicide and might as well re-enter a rebuild.
And to win those trades you are rarely gonna find someone to give you a better, younger player at the same position for the underachieving one that you are trying to move. To WIN a trade like that, you probably have to find someone who is looking to move the opposite position of what you are offering. So like, I don't see a situation where we can move Miller for a younger defenseman with more upside. But maybe you could move Miller somewhere to a team that wants a young project defenseman.... and they will give you back a young project forward.
That's kinda how I see wins evolving with Miller, but Lindgren too. Lindgren is going to have value. You can get an under-25 forward with top 6 potential for him. And possibly picks as well. You just have to find the right guy and the right team to bite. But like, yeah, Barrett Hayton for Lindgren or something, that's the move. Miller for Zegras.
The issue then is, you've opened up holes on defense. Are you moving Kakko for a young defenseman?
I literally hate the idea of moving Kakko.
McRanger92
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2017
- 14,148
- 26,355
At what point are we allowed to deal unrealized potential. Miller is 24 and backsliding. Trouba isn’t the reason he’s been bad. Doesn’t play physical, doesn’t skate hard, can’t complete a pass, can’t even get shots through from the point. Trouba sucks but those issues are well within miller’s control. We have an issue with apathy on this team and Kandre is part of it based on his play.
“Winning” trades is fan logic. What’s going to help us win games? I’d be offering miller to everyone for a young center or prime aged Top 4 D (we have 1 currently). We will lose if we go into the playoffs with Lindgren and Miller in our top 4. Jones isn’t worse than either of them at this point
“Winning” trades is fan logic. What’s going to help us win games? I’d be offering miller to everyone for a young center or prime aged Top 4 D (we have 1 currently). We will lose if we go into the playoffs with Lindgren and Miller in our top 4. Jones isn’t worse than either of them at this point
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,838
- 12,976
Winning trades is what helps you win games.
Too much focus on what helps you win games tomorrow and not for the next decade, only serves to put you behind the 8 ball. Like, moving Miller for two short term plugs who are 28 years old is a loss for us. Anyone who is 28 and affordable isn't going to be good enough to move the needle for us. It would only be patching things for this season, and that's a losing proposition.
Win long term value. That's how you win games.
I would have thought that would be obvious at this point.
I guess maybe to clarify, I'm not saying that we have to be regretful if we trade Miller for, say, Lundell, and Miller goes on to be a 1D Norris winning all-star in Florida whereas Lundell becomes a 60 point two-way center, but, at the moment of trade, Miller for Lundell would seem to be a "win." You can't move Miller and a second, for like, Monahan and Matheson so that you can ice that team and try to make a run this year. That's a value loss.
Miller is the only player on the team right now that has the trade value to bring back assets that can fill a couple holes. Lindgren and Goodrow don't have that value on the market. Trouba and Krieder can't be traded until the summer. So the question is are you willing to move on from Miller. He's 24. I don't believe we would be selling at a low point as others have suggested. Guys with his physical attributes never are on the market at 24. Then why sell him? Because it's entirely possible that this is who he is. Other teams would be betting that he has a couple of rungs still to be climbed. I'm willing to trade him for a huge package. Starting to sour on him turning into a superstar stud.
McRanger92
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2017
- 14,148
- 26,355
No one is saying to move Miller for Sean Monahan and Mike Matheson. Youre arguing against nothing if thats what youre saying. Id be looking to move Miller for Shane Pinto (dont care that OTT "dont need a left D", their team is bad top to bottom) or Noah Hanifin, who we would then extend. If i need to be specific, those are the trades I'm looking at. Top 4 D or (preferably) young center with term. That trade is out there somewhere as long as we're not paralyzed by fear of Miller becoming a Norris winner. Im willing to take the risk. Miller isnt amounting to anything without a serious wake up call, and promoting him to be Fox's problem doesn't constitute that.
Agree with almost all of this. However, I wouldn't trade Miller for a center alone. Drury has backed himself into a corner with the lack of depth on defense. I don't think we have a replacement for Miller on the current roster. Certainly don't want to be forced to play Jones for the rest of the season. So for me, an in season trade of Miller needs to bring back a LD along with other assets. You definitely can get a 2 for 1. Other GMs see potential Norris like you said and will pay for that possibility.
Not many teams have the "depth" to trade a top 4 defenseman and promote from within without missing a beat. It's not a "lack of depth". IF you had depth that good you'd use it for filling holes in other parts of the lineup.
I also would be shocked if the Rangers are interested in dealing Miller at the moment so this all feels like overreactionary stuff from people without realistic ideas of how NHL teams build rosters and view players
Not true. Most teams have a draft pick or two biding their time in the minors, ready to step in. Actually, we have a couple forwards in that class with Othmann, etc. What we don't have is a defenseman capable of stepping in. This team has been real, real lucky injury wise on defense. We played 1 game where 2 of our original 6 didn't play. Imagine playing a month without 2 of them. The lack of a pipeline on defense is why we are going to have such a problem trading away a defenseman
McRanger92
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2017
- 14,148
- 26,355
Trading Miller would be a very ballsy move in season by Drury. I dont think its likely. They need to get another good defenseman though, because Lindgren and KAM are killing us in the top 4. And Trouba needs to get his head out of his ass.
Lindgren should be moved wayyyy before Miller is moved. Ditto Trouba.
People act like you can't just sign or trade for defensemen. You can.
People act like you can't just sign or trade for defensemen. You can.
Miller brings back a ton more than Lindgren. That's the reason I'd prefer to trade Miller. And all we are talking is an inseason trade. Obviously, Drury can rebuild the defense in the offseason should Trouba be dealt then. But a trade now? Miller makes sense IF the trade includes us getting a replacement defenseman plus other young controllable assets.
Yeah but the other caveat is that you still have Lindgren taking up space, both in cap and on the roster.
If people really want to "fix' the top 4, it should start by removing the players who are actually the problem in the top 4 instead of just moving guys because they "bring back more."
Well, some of us think that Miller is part of the problem. He's playing like crap. Is it a blip on the radar? I don't think so. I wouldn't suggest trading him if I didn't have doubts about his long term potential.
Last edited:
He isn't playing well, but the other 2 have been worse and it's more or less been season long for those 2 rather than just a month.
I don't know why its crickets for those 2 with some people (less so with Trouba.)
Lindgren is also currently hurt for the 23902390230923th time in his career. Seems like a good idea to move him before he's broken for good.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Yeah, of course Miller brings back more. He's better. Let's trade Fox, he brings back the most!
That's an extreme example, but the point is, if we trade Miller, replacing Miller immediately becomes the need. If the trade fills that need, is it not a lateral trade to begin with?
On top of that, LD is arguably the biggest need even with Miller on the roster. It just doesn't make any sense.
We can trade Lindgren without creating another hole. We can't do that with Miller.
That's an extreme example, but the point is, if we trade Miller, replacing Miller immediately becomes the need. If the trade fills that need, is it not a lateral trade to begin with?
On top of that, LD is arguably the biggest need even with Miller on the roster. It just doesn't make any sense.
We can trade Lindgren without creating another hole. We can't do that with Miller.
All my posts are for potential moves to make now because we have a huge hole at 3C and the defense is playing horrible defense. You can't trade Trouba now because of the no trade clauses. You want to trade him in July, I'll applaud that. Now Lindgren is always hurt, his body is breaking down. He's having a bad season. He's a RFA at seasons end and a UFA in July 2025. What kind of return are you getting on him? Very little. Now Miller, he still has that aura of potential. You will get a huge return for him and you won't hurt our defense. You will lose his puck carrying and offense. But our defense? Trading him won't hurt us there. He makes way too many boneheaded decisions in our end.
Why not? Miller should bring back a LD and a young center. Lindgren doesn't come close to that. People seem to assume I'm trading Miller just because we need assets. Part of the reason for trading Miller is that the bloom is off the rose. I don't think he reaches the next level. If you still think he does, then you hold. I don't.
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,838
- 12,976
I'm a relative Lindgren supporter but I think people would be surprised how much he could bring back.
Ill-deserved reputation means a lot in this NHL GMing circle of nepotism.
People are going to think Lindgren is a warrior who leaves it all on the ice, if you dangle him. And he's cheap.
They aren't gonna look at his metrics.
I bet Lindgren can return a lot. I'm interested to dangle him just because he doesn't look irreplaceable to us and I bet he could bring back way more than he's worth to us. That's always a win. He screams "someone will pay a developmental 1C for him," to me.
Trouba has been worse for longer and costs a lot more, and I honestly believe there is a GM out there somewhere who would be willing to give up a late first for him. The bigger problem is whether that GM could afford to take the contract, which, probably not.
Ill-deserved reputation means a lot in this NHL GMing circle of nepotism.
People are going to think Lindgren is a warrior who leaves it all on the ice, if you dangle him. And he's cheap.
They aren't gonna look at his metrics.
I bet Lindgren can return a lot. I'm interested to dangle him just because he doesn't look irreplaceable to us and I bet he could bring back way more than he's worth to us. That's always a win. He screams "someone will pay a developmental 1C for him," to me.
Trouba has been worse for longer and costs a lot more, and I honestly believe there is a GM out there somewhere who would be willing to give up a late first for him. The bigger problem is whether that GM could afford to take the contract, which, probably not.
Lindgren is a RFA after this season and a UFA after next. So a team needs to trade for him AND re sign him.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
That doesn't make sense.
The bloom is off the rose but somebody else is going to send back a center and an upgrade on Miller for Miller?
We need to upgrade LD. To do that, we need to package a LD and we're the ones adding. That's how trade value works. That makes more sense to do with Lindgren.
You're valuing Miller as if he's expendable to us but other teams are going to beat the door down. It's 2024. They have statistics and endless tape. They're seeing what we're seeing.
You are assuming they all see what we see. It only takes one to see something different.
Thought it is usually the rangers GM as being different, and wrong haha
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
If you think some other GM is going to overvalue Miller, it's on the basis that he's 7 feet tall and a freak athlete. He'll be 7 feet tall and a freak athlete next year.
There's no reason to not at least see what you can do with a different partner. If you believe in his value that much, it'll still be there.
We know what Lindgren is.
Even the version of Miller playing right now is top 4 defenseman. Lindgren probably isn't. It's a position we need to upgrade, not rearrange.
Trading the better player doesn't make any sense.
Miller still has potential to grow into a stud defenseman. There's hope. He's young with a lot of physical skills and size. A bunch of teams would want him. I just don't think he's ever getting to that stratosphere.
It's funny though that guys on here think Lindgren is the worse offensive player in history and his body is breaking down and he's due for a new contract so he has to go. Yet, teams are giving us cheap, young offensive talent for him. You can't have it both ways. There's still hope for Miller. Teams will pay for that. Lindgren is what he is. No sex appeal for him on the market.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Nobody is suggesting we trade Lindgren for a better LD. Nobody would do that.
The consensus is that we would put together a package for a LD, and that package includes Lindgren because it makes cap sense, it makes positional sense, and because he's a decent piece to start a package with.
You're trying to trade Miller for a good player that plays the same position as Miller, and get an add. That's exactly what you say people are trying to do with Lindgren.
And even if you did...let's say Ottawa trades us Chychrun and Pinto for Miller because they're absolutely stupid: you lock Chychrun in and who's our other top 4 LD for the next several years? Erik Gustafsson?
You're trading Miller from a position we can't afford to lose players at.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: Around the NHL: JR is about to wake up from his nap and make trades and such
- Latest: Honour Over Glory
-
-
Player Discussion Patrik Laine: Part 2 - Healthy Living Edition- Latest: OneSharpMarble
