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

[Bleach Clean]

Continue here.


Previous Thread: Player Discussion - What do we have in J.T. Miller?


Posts from last thread:

I didn't hedge any bets, and I never do.

I projected 55 points for Miller (and 55-60 on one occasion) and said he'd be a good fit with Pettersson and was a good player. I never had any issue with the player.

He was a consistent 40-45 ES point guy with NYR. I expected him to return to that level if given quality linemates, with some PP production. I did not expect him to be a PP dynamo and felt that his 20 PP points last year was probably already a fluke influenced by Stamkos and Kucherov. I was clearly wrong about that. But the ES performance is ... about what I expected.

I had a major issue with the trading of an unprotected #1 pick when we're a non-playoff team, but that's a different discussion entirely and has nothing to do with Miller himself as a player.



I just picked the player universally considered the best player in the sport over the last 20 years. I could have used McDavid (33 PP points, less than Miller is tracking for now, in his 116 points last year) or Patrick Kane or Draisaitl or Gaudreau and they all had fewer PP points than Miller is tracking toward.

And yeah, you agree the production isn't sustainable. So what's the freaking point in arguing it?

It shouldn't be terribly surprising that a 60 point player could have a 30 point in 30 game stretch. Miller has probably had 1 or 2 in the past.

I never said it was and that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing his performance hasn't been as predicted, which you agree is true. I only argued it in the first place because Melvin claimed it was, and I wouldn't still be arguing it if people hadn't attempted to claim I was actually arguing about a variety of other things whose truth is uncertain in order to avoid admitting they were wrong.

Click to read more...

 

[M2Beezy]

He good

 

[Bleach Clean]

The entire premise of what I'm getting at is that at some point, performance would dictate the balance of the overall NPV. To stretch it to the extreme, even if we knew for certain that the pick would be the 2021 1st overall, if Miller was a 100 point player over the next four seasons, it doesn't matter. There is almost no chance that the NPV of that 1st overall, even with the additional contingency of "is this team good during this window?" outweighs the monstrous individual performance.

And given that in reality, in the *worst* case scenario, there is a ~18% chance of a last place 1st rounder being first overall (and then considering that not all first overalls are franchise players, let alone consistent 100 point players), the positive NPV from a 100 point JT Miller outweighs the negative, risk-adjusted NPV factors.

Just as the opposite is true. If Miller was a 35-40 point middling, Tanner Pearson level winger, or worse, the trade would be atrocious; even if Jim Benning pulled some voodoo **** and managed to make the playoffs in 2020 and win the Cup in 2021 with the player going to Tampa at 31st overall in 2021 never playing an NHL game. So in that sense, JT's absolute performance dictates the outcome, because that is the singular factor we are constantly assessing. What the organization does aside from that is absolutely important, but not when we're looking at this in a vacuum - the execution given the strategy. It's a different discussion on whether this type of move makes sense given where the organization is. For another example, the infamous age gap strategy may have actually made sense in 2014; but targetting Linden Vey was a terrible implementation of that goal.

So outside of these stretched scenarios, it is only in the median situation, where the player performs as "expected" - in the 50-60 point range - that the final factor of, "is this team taking the next step into consistently being in the playoffs" gets significantly amplified IMO. That's where you're executing as expected, based on the desired outcome; so the question singularly becomes "are we achieving the outcome"? But right now, with Miller performing above that, it matters less when just assessing this trade.

The compensation for this trade is that Miller replicate his 50~ point performance in order to push the Canucks into the playoffs. Both things would have to happen. Otherwise, there's no impetus to do the deal.

Think about it this way: Would a team that has missed 4 straight season of the playoffs, having the worst record over that span, scorch future earth for a 50 point 2way forward in isolation? If you say no, then you are acknowledging that the beginning and ending team state is a definite factor in how you evaluate a trade. This is the timing referred to by Melvin. If you say yes, then team state is irrelevant to the deal. However, if it is irrelevant, what is the impetus for one of the worst teams in the league to trade futures for a mid-termed contract? There isn't one.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

JT Miller > Matthew Tkachuk so in a way trading a 1st for JT Miller is like drafting a better Matt Tkachuk which totally makes up for the Juolevi pick not looking as good. I haven’t been so happy about a trade since we got Luongo. JT Miller is an absolute STAR.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

The compensation for this trade is that Miller replicate his 50~ point performance in order to push the Canucks into the playoffs. Both things would have to happen. Otherwise, there's no impetus to do the deal.

Think about it this way: Would a team that has missed 4 straight season of the playoffs, having the worst record over that span, scorch future earth for a 50 point 2way forward in isolation? If you say no, then you are acknowledging that the beginning and ending team state is a definite factor in how you evaluate a trade. This is the timing referred to by Melvin. If you say yes, then team state is irrelevant to the deal. However, if it is irrelevant, what is the impetus for one of the worst teams in the league to trade futures for a mid-termed contract? There isn't one.

Oh my god trading one pick isn’t scorching future earth, how ridiculously can you hyperbolize?

 

[bandwagonesque]

This is the timing referred to by Melvin.

If you're referring to his claim about his performance, he never said this and you're making it up. In context it was clear he was referring to Miller's performance so far.

 

[vancityluongo]

The compensation for this trade is that Miller replicate his 50~ point performance in order to push the Canucks into the playoffs. Both things would have to happen. Otherwise, there's no impetus to do the deal.

Think about it this way: Would a team that has missed 4 straight season of the playoffs, having the worst record over that span, scorch future earth for a 50 point 2way forward in isolation? If you say no, then you are acknowledging that the beginning and ending team state is a definite factor in how you evaluate a trade. This is the timing referred to by Melvin. If you say yes, then team state is irrelevant to the deal. However, if it is irrelevant, what is the impetus for one of the worst teams in the league to trade futures for a mid-termed contract? There isn't one.

"Futures" are not infinite value propositions.

Unless a team is trying to tank (Detroit), all moves should be made under the presumption that there is value being created. The timing aspect is relevant because usually a team has to give up future value (a 1st round pick materializing in a year or two and potentially paying dividends many years after that) for current value (a roster player that scores aforementioned 50 points). A team that currently sucks should strategically place a lot more value in future value assets than a team in a current contending window. Neither of us need this explained any further at such a trivial level.

What I'm arguing against is a generalization that under no circumstance aside from a clear, tangible improvement in the team (ie. making the playoffs), is giving up future value worth it if that current goal is not met. I think that's dubious, given how many factors go into the achievement of said goal.

That is not saying that the trade should be assessed in isolation without being cognizant of the organizational lifecycle of the team. Of course the beginning and end state are a factor in the evaluation of the trade.

But if there is a stated goal to make the playoffs, it would be wrong to say a hypothetical 100 point player didn't contribute towards that goal, even if the goal was not achieved due to a dozen other (negative NPV) moves hindering the overall progress of the team. "Playoffs" is an arbitrary goal anyways, especially considering over half the league makes it. And in assessing the value obtained in acquiring JT Miller, I just find it hard to view a 50 point player contributing to a team that squeezes into the playoffs as the first wild card and wins two rounds as being more valuable than one that scores 80 points but plays on a team that misses the playoffs by 4 points.

That's what I mean by saying JT Miller drives the majority of his value proposition. I'm not at all saying that his play is the only factor in the assessment.

 

[F A N]

"Futures" are not infinite value propositions.

Unless a team is trying to tank (Detroit), all moves should be made under the presumption that there is value being created. The timing aspect is relevant because usually a team has to give up future value (a 1st round pick materializing in a year or two and potentially paying dividends many years after that) for current value (a roster player that scores aforementioned 50 points). A team that currently sucks should strategically place a lot more value in future value assets than a team in a current contending window. Neither of us need this explained any further at such a trivial level.

What I'm arguing against is a generalization that under no circumstance aside from a clear, tangible improvement in the team (ie. making the playoffs), is giving up future value worth it if that current goal is not met. I think that's dubious, given how many factors go into the achievement of said goal.

That is not saying that the trade should be assessed in isolation without being cognizant of the organizational lifecycle of the team. Of course the beginning and end state are a factor in the evaluation of the trade.

But if there is a stated goal to make the playoffs, it would be wrong to say a hypothetical 100 point player didn't contribute towards that goal, even if the goal was not achieved due to a dozen other (negative NPV) moves hindering the overall progress of the team. "Playoffs" is an arbitrary goal anyways, especially considering over half the league makes it. And in assessing the value obtained in acquiring JT Miller, I just find it hard to view a 50 point player contributing to a team that squeezes into the playoffs as the first wild card and wins two rounds as being more valuable than one that scores 80 points but plays on a team that misses the playoffs by 4 points.

That's what I mean by saying JT Miller drives the majority of his value proposition. I'm not at all saying that his play is the only factor in the assessment.

Thank you for not subscribing to the flawed logic that if you agree that it isn't A then it must be B. There are still some on here who considered the Leivo trade an example of Benning bleeding assets. It used to be that if a GM makes a trade and it turns out lopsided in his favour then he won the trade and gets praised for it. Now it seems like the results don't matter.

With this year's draft pick being lottery protected, the odds of the 1st round pick for Miller being a top 3 pick is minuscule. The odds of that pick being a top 5 pick is not that much better. But here we are arguing about the risk that pick could turn out to be a 1st overall pick but completely ignoring the odds of that happening.

I don't like the price paid for JT Miller either. It was a steep price to pay. But based on his counting stats, Miller was a good candidate to bounce back. He had 47 points last season on a down year. He had 22 goals 56+ points in 2 out of the last three seasons. His underlying numbers suggest that Miller offers value in many areas that the Canucks were weak in. Thus far Miller has offered value in the expected areas and then some.

Teams don't go from bottom dwellers to Cup contenders quickly simply by adding players when the team has shown that they are playoff contenders. Before the first Crosby and Malkin led Cups happened the Penguins signed a 31 year old Gonchar. The Leafs, which many who are critical of the trade see as the ideal rebuild, traded a 1st and 2nd for Andersen early in their rebuild. When you have a chance to add a good player for value who is young enough to still be in his prime when your team is expected to compete you seriously consider adding that player.

 

[Melvin]

"Futures" are not infinite value propositions.

Unless a team is trying to tank (Detroit), all moves should be made under the presumption that there is value being created. The timing aspect is relevant because usually a team has to give up future value (a 1st round pick materializing in a year or two and potentially paying dividends many years after that) for current value (a roster player that scores aforementioned 50 points). A team that currently sucks should strategically place a lot more value in future value assets than a team in a current contending window. Neither of us need this explained any further at such a trivial level.

What I'm arguing against is a generalization that under no circumstance aside from a clear, tangible improvement in the team (ie. making the playoffs), is giving up future value worth it if that current goal is not met. I think that's dubious, given how many factors go into the achievement of said goal.

That is not saying that the trade should be assessed in isolation without being cognizant of the organizational lifecycle of the team. Of course the beginning and end state are a factor in the evaluation of the trade.

But if there is a stated goal to make the playoffs, it would be wrong to say a hypothetical 100 point player didn't contribute towards that goal, even if the goal was not achieved due to a dozen other (negative NPV) moves hindering the overall progress of the team. "Playoffs" is an arbitrary goal anyways, especially considering over half the league makes it. And in assessing the value obtained in acquiring JT Miller, I just find it hard to view a 50 point player contributing to a team that squeezes into the playoffs as the first wild card and wins two rounds as being more valuable than one that scores 80 points but plays on a team that misses the playoffs by 4 points.

That's what I mean by saying JT Miller drives the majority of his value proposition. I'm not at all saying that his play is the only factor in the assessment.

I think you might be right. I was thinking about it since your last post and I think you've convinced me.

 

[Lindgren]

When you have a chance to add a good player for value who is young enough to still be in his prime when your team is expected to compete you seriously consider adding that player.

When do you think the team will be ready to compete? I think disagreement about the answer to that question is behind much of the disagreement about the Miller trade.

 

[I am toxic]

When do you think the team will be ready to compete? I think disagreement about the answer to that question is behind much of the disagreement about the Miller trade.

When healthy.

oops, did I hit "Post Reply"?

sorry Mods. It's who I am.

 

[4Twenty]

Nice to be able to post in the JT Miller thread again.

JT Miller the player has been excellent for the Canucks, I can say I didn't expect him to be a Point per game player.

It seems this thread is more for re-assessing the trade and not the "player discussion". The trade assessing is management talk as far as I'm concerned.

I've got a question for F A N - should the Canucks trade more 1st round picks at the trade deadline this year? I think you'll say no, but this sentence: "when you have a chance to add a good player for value who is young enough to still be in his prime when your team is expected to compete you should seriously consider adding that player". Like why draw the line at 1 JT Miller, lets go buy one on D, maybe even two. Like who needs 1st round picks, it's not like you and countless other people have screamed "build through the draft" and "the only way to get this type of player in your system is to draft them".


Also, do you understand that adding Frederik Andersen for the Leafs was palatable because the leafs had spent the previous two years hoarding picks? Like if Vancouver had an extra 1st rounder then the JT Miller trade would never have really been met with the criticism it had.

It's a multifaceted issue:
- team has been terrible
- team has not accumulated picks in their down turn
- team has many long term commitments to veterans
- team only seems to get anything of value at the draft from their 1st's

Toronto gave up a 1st in 2016 and a 2nd in 2017 for Frederik Andersen, in the two years that preceded that deal the Leafs had accumulated these picks:

2015: 1st and 2nd
2016: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th
2017: 2nd, 2nd, 7th

I'd still be concerned about chasing present success with this trade, but if the Canucks had accumulated two additional 1st's and four 2nd's over the past years while "rebuildin" or as I like to put it, just being bad, then the trade wouldn't have been scrutinized as much. There is a difference between buying luxury things with premium assets when you have a surplus of premium assets. It's why people have been shouting from the rooftops for 5 years to try and hoard these premium assets in the form of draft picks.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Nice to be able to post in the JT Miller thread again.

JT Miller the player has been excellent for the Canucks, I can say I didn't expect him to be a Point per game player.

It seems this thread is more for re-assessing the trade and not the "player discussion". The trade assessing is management talk as far as I'm concerned.

I've got a question for F A N - should the Canucks trade more 1st round picks at the trade deadline this year? I think you'll say no, but this sentence: "when you have a chance to add a good player for value who is young enough to still be in his prime when your team is expected to compete you should seriously consider adding that player". Like why draw the line at 1 JT Miller, lets go buy one on D, maybe even two. Like who needs 1st round picks, it's not like you and countless other people have screamed "build through the draft" and "the only way to get this type of player in your system is to draft them".


Also, do you understand that adding Frederik Andersen for the Leafs was palatable because the leafs had spent the previous two years hoarding picks? Like if Vancouver had an extra 1st rounder then the JT Miller trade would never have really been met with the criticism it had.

It's a multifaceted issue:
- team has been terrible
- team has not accumulated picks in their down turn
- team has many long term commitments to veterans
- team only seems to get anything of value at the draft from their 1st's

Toronto gave up a 1st in 2016 and a 2nd in 2017 for Frederik Andersen, in the two years that preceded that deal the Leafs had accumulated these picks:

2015: 1st and 2nd
2016: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th
2017: 2nd, 2nd, 7th

I'd still be concerned about chasing present success with this trade, but if the Canucks had accumulated two additional 1st's and four 2nd's over the past years while "rebuildin" or as I like to put it, just being bad, then the trade wouldn't have been scrutinized as much. There is a difference between buying luxury things with premium assets when you have a surplus of premium assets. It's why people have been shouting from the rooftops for 5 years to try and hoard these premium assets in the form of draft picks.

So the team didn’t stockpile picks yet every key position on the team is filled with players we’ve drafted and tons of elite skill... it’s almost like the “we must stockpile picks or else we’re doing everything wrong” narrative was a bunch of malarkey! Say it ain’t so!

 

[4Twenty]

Stockpile picks so when you go shopping for a premium asset you still have the high end future piece.

I could see puffing your chest out if the team wasn't 12-12-7 in regulation. They're firmly middle of the pack.

You don't think the JT Miller trade would look better for Vancouver if they still had a first round pick? If not, then you're just praising everything they do as per usual and provide absolutely nothing to any discussion. Cheers.

 

[Horse McHindu]

1) I think the Miller trade was an excellent one for a variety of reasons. Not only is Miller a versatile Top 6 player, but he’s on an absolute sweet heart cap friendly deal.........and this will be a huge factor for us in the 2021-2022 season (the year where I think we will go deep ).

2). Recouping the first: Given our up coming cap challenges (challenges, but challenges of which we’ll be able to overcome I believe), I do believe that some of our upcoming RFA’s will be packaged for a 1st rounder.......maybe even as early as this years draft. Time will tell obviously, but I do think that there’s a plan in place for this coming summer.

Ps - I’ll go a little off topic here, but I think the friendly cap hits of Miller and Boeser will help the team set a short term internal cap limit (ie players taking bridges and short term cap friendly bridges so that we possibly go deep in 2-3 years). Miller and Boeser are on cap friendly deals, and I believe that Quinn Hughes will get a modern day version of the Zack Werenski bridge when his deal comes up (ie not a 5.5 million cap hit, but rather, whatever percentage of the overall cap that Werenski’s cap hit took up when he signed his deal back then).

I think Pettersson will be our only “big” contract in two years (typical 8 year deal for an elite franchise center).

Other than EP though, I think this team will have some sweet heart contracts come 2021-2022 and I think a large part of this will be due to the presence of J.T. Miller (his presence and cap hit setting the tone).

If the Canucks can get Eriksson to retire before 2021-2022 (31 of his 36 million will have been paid out after July 1st 2020), then I REALLY like how this team will look in 2021-2022.

One or both of Hoglander and Podkolzin should also be impact players at this time.

 

[m9]

The main difference in the Fredrick Anderson trade (at least to me) is that the cost of the main piece in the trade was fixed in that it was already guaranteed to be #30 overall so there's not nearly the risk involved as there was in the Miller trade.

 

[Horse McHindu]

The main difference in the Fredrick Anderson trade (at least to me) is that the cost of the main piece in the trade was fixed in that it was already guaranteed to be #30 overall so there's not nearly the risk involved as there was in the Miller trade.

it’s very unlikely that the Canucks will be a bottom feeding team in 2020-2021. I don’t think there’s much of a risk at all to be honest.

 

[4Twenty]

1. So they're not going deep one of the next two years? So they added him for what?

2. There is not an RFA on the Canucks that would return a 1st round pick. There isn't a player on the roster that the team would have any interest in parting with that would return a 1st round pick.

3. Pipe dreams. The only reason the RFA's chased bridges this year is because they see dollar signs from the new TV deal and Seattle expansion. Hughes and Petey are going to be earning their cake, rightfully so.

4. Intrigued you expect "sweetheart" deals, when there are none on the roster. When has Benning ever been able to sign sweetheart deals? He's got $3.36m in Sven in Utica, Sam Gagner was traded for a player they bought out, Loui Eriksson is $36m pressbox fodder, Dorsett/Sbisa extensions, Gudbranson extension, Sutter extension with retroactive NTC etc etc etc etc.

5. The Canucks everyone would agree are performing well this year to expectations. They're middle of the pack, they could easily fall back this year, and largely the same group returns next year with some key pieces needing extensions. It's no guarantee the Canucks are a playoff team over the next two seasons.

I hope they are next year, but it's no guarantee. It's also no guarantee a career 50-60 point winger maintains his 80-90 point pace.

 

[PecaFan]

it’s very unlikely that the Canucks will be a bottom feeding team in 2020-2021. I don’t think there’s much of a risk at all to be honest.

Depends on what your definition of bottom feeder is. Because this team is currently 5th in their division and not in a playoff spot, while literally everything has gone their way this year, no significant injuries and Miller playing like a hall of famer.

Finishing around the 10th overall draft spot is still a likely outcome for this/next year.

 

[Bleach Clean]

"Futures" are not infinite value propositions.

Unless a team is trying to tank (Detroit), all moves should be made under the presumption that there is value being created. The timing aspect is relevant because usually a team has to give up future value (a 1st round pick materializing in a year or two and potentially paying dividends many years after that) for current value (a roster player that scores aforementioned 50 points). A team that currently sucks should strategically place a lot more value in future value assets than a team in a current contending window. Neither of us need this explained any further at such a trivial level.

What I'm arguing against is a generalization that under no circumstance aside from a clear, tangible improvement in the team (ie. making the playoffs), is giving up future value worth it if that current goal is not met. I think that's dubious, given how many factors go into the achievement of said goal.

That is not saying that the trade should be assessed in isolation without being cognizant of the organizational lifecycle of the team. Of course the beginning and end state are a factor in the evaluation of the trade.

But if there is a stated goal to make the playoffs, it would be wrong to say a hypothetical 100 point player didn't contribute towards that goal, even if the goal was not achieved due to a dozen other (negative NPV) moves hindering the overall progress of the team. "Playoffs" is an arbitrary goal anyways, especially considering over half the league makes it. And in assessing the value obtained in acquiring JT Miller, I just find it hard to view a 50 point player contributing to a team that squeezes into the playoffs as the first wild card and wins two rounds as being more valuable than one that scores 80 points but plays on a team that misses the playoffs by 4 points.

That's what I mean by saying JT Miller drives the majority of his value proposition. I'm not at all saying that his play is the only factor in the assessment.

Ah, I read your earlier takes as there being a threshold by which JT Miller's play _alone_ would be a determinant in assessing the overall value of the trade. That is what I disagree with. Here you are localizing his impact to the majority, and that his play is not the only factor in the assessment. This then directly refutes:

"If JT Miller gets 100 points, the trade is a win regardless of what happens with the pick" [paraphrased]. Does it not? If not, please clarify.



A key phrase you have used here "A team that currently sucks should place a lot more value in future assets than a team in a current contending window". This phrase acknowledges the importance of team state when assessing the impetus for a deal. In that regard, this trade's process is assigned, IMO, significantly negative NPV. Do you agree or disagree?

If you don't agree, please outline why/why not? If you do agree, then it seems clear that all of the factors used to judge a positive ending result must be just as, if not more significant, to judge the trade even or positive overall. Fair or unfair?

In whatever variation, to me, the ending team state _has_ to factor into the end determination of this deal. There's no way around it. It is the impetus to front load asset value to the present. It is the reason why.

 

[F A N]

When do you think the team will be ready to compete? I think disagreement about the answer to that question is behind much of the disagreement about the Miller trade.

2 summers ago, I think most predicted the Canucks were 2-3 years away from competing for a playoff spot. We then saw Petey establish himself as a bonafide #1 C. We saw Markstrom transform into a capable #1 goalie with Demko ready to back him up. We saw Quinn Hughes development. Canucks fans were genuinely debating whether that timeline has moved up. If you don't move up the timeline then that 2-3 years became 1-2 years this summer. If you moved the the timeline up then the Canucks are ready to compete for a playoff spot between this season or the next. If the timeline hasn't changed with the passage of time I'm wondering why. Don't forget that that trade occurred prior to seeing what the Canucks would do in free agency. How many posters were open to changing their minds based on what the Canucks do in free agency? You would think that is the reasonable open minded thing to do.

Nice to be able to post in the JT Miller thread again.
I've got a question for F A N - should the Canucks trade more 1st round picks at the trade deadline this year? I think you'll say no, but this sentence: "when you have a chance to add a good player for value who is young enough to still be in his prime when your team is expected to compete you should seriously consider adding that player". Like why draw the line at 1 JT Miller, lets go buy one on D, maybe even two. Like who needs 1st round picks, it's not like you and countless other people have screamed "build through the draft" and "the only way to get this type of player in your system is to draft them".

Draft picks are trade currency. You also get to select a prospect that hopefully turns into an NHL player that represents a good value relative to their draft position. I take the position that a team's GM should hear and consider all offers. By default it's not good to be without a first round pick. Not having first round picks in consecutive years can set a franchise back (in the same way missing on your first round pick can).

Anyways, I'm not sure what the issue is. I want Benning to hear all offers and consider them. If you're being offered a player that you typically can't get unless you draft that player, don't you think you should seriously consider acquiring that player? If Colorado offers Makar for this year's first and second I think most of us would say make the trade.

 

[4Twenty]

I think attempting to draw a parallel between JT Miller at 26 and Cale Makar at ~20 and on an ELC is unrealistic. Do you think the team should invest a heavy futures package for a defensman like Cam Fowler or Rasmus Ristolainen? Where do you draw the line? When do you say no to moving a 1st? Usually for me, that would be when there isn't an excess of picks in the organization and when the team is bad.

 

[vancityluongo]

Ah, I read your earlier takes as there being a threshold by which JT Miller's play _alone_ would be a determinant in assessing the overall value of the trade. That is what I disagree with. Here you are localizing his impact to the majority, and that his play is not the only factor in the assessment. This then directly refutes:

"If JT Miller gets 100 points, the trade is a win regardless of what happens with the pick" [paraphrased]. Does it not? If not, please clarify.

Uh, no?

In my opinion, a 100 point player is more valuable than a 18% chance at 1st overall (assuming we finish last). Do you agree or disagree? Don't consider the lifecycle of where the team is; just straight up, what would you rather have?

A key phrase you have used here "A team that currently sucks should place a lot more value in future assets than a team in a current contending window". This phrase acknowledges the importance of team state when assessing the impetus for a deal. In that regard, this trade's process is assigned, IMO, significantly negative NPV. Do you agree or disagree?

Agreed. Isn't that exactly what I was saying?

If you don't agree, please outline why/why not? If you do agree, then it seems clear that all of the factors used to judge a positive ending result must be just as, if not more significant, to judge the trade even or positive overall. Fair or unfair?

Disagree; this is the key phrase I used to outline why: "Futures" are not infinite value propositions.

If we're breaking this down to a formula, I'd say it would look something like:

NPV = 0.5*(JT Miller's performance) - 0.3(Canucks' performance) - 0.2*(placement of 1st rounder)

where:

- The coefficients are the weighting of each factor (as a percentage)
- JT Miller's performance is graded at a baseline of "0" for finishing at 50 points (the defined expectations), with +/- 0.4 for every 10 points above or below that mark. In this system, 30 points is given a score of -0.8, 80 points nets a 1.2, 100 points nets a 2, and so on.
- The Canucks performance is either given a -1 for making the playoffs, or a 1 for missing the playoffs (I disagree with this binary metric, but I'm including it for simplicity and the purposes of continuity in this discussion)
- The first rounder holds an expected value of 15th overall, which is given a "0". Picks >15 are negative from there, where the value is incrementally additive, to a minimum of -1. For picks <15, the scheme is something like:
14th overall = 0.1, 13th = 0.1, 12th = 0.1, 11th = 0.1, 10th = 0.2, 9th = 0.2, 8th = 0.3, 7th = 0.4, 6th = 0.5, 5th = 0.8, 4th = 1.0, 3rd = 1.3, 2nd = 1.5, and finally, 1st = 2

Hopefully it is obvious that the above is in no way scientific. Connor McDavid is worth much more than a 2, Nail Yakupov is worth much less. Also, there is no way to "guarantee" that finish. There should also be an additional lottery based percentage added as a coefficient, but remember, this is a theoretical exercise where I've stated the condition is even if it is given the pick 1st overall.

So, given those criteria, if JT Miller scores 100 points, the Canucks miss the playoffs, and the pick is 1st overall:

NPV = 0.5(2) + 0.3(-1) - 0.2(2)
= 1 - 0.3 - 0.4
NPV = 0.3 (positive)

That's my approximate formula, and therefore, my argument. That is the crux of "If JT Miller gets 100 points, the trade is a win regardless of what happens with the pick". Similarly, if JT Miller scores 30 points, the Canucks make the playoffs and give up ~18 overall:

NPV = 0.5(-0.8) + 0.3(1) - 0.2(-0.1)
= -0.4 + 0.3 + 0.02
NPV = -0.08 (negative)

I'm absolutely open to others' arguments that 0.5 is way too much weighting for the individual player's performance. Obviously everyone will/should have different criteria. But can you now see what I mean when I say I value Miller's individual performance enough to drive the equation?

 

[Lindgren]

2 summers ago, I think most predicted the Canucks were 2-3 years away from competing for a playoff spot. We then saw Petey establish himself as a bonafide #1 C. We saw Markstrom transform into a capable #1 goalie with Demko ready to back him up. We saw Quinn Hughes development. Canucks fans were genuinely debating whether that timeline has moved up. If you don't move up the timeline then that 2-3 years became 1-2 years this summer. If you moved the the timeline up then the Canucks are ready to compete for a playoff spot between this season or the next. If the timeline hasn't changed with the passage of time I'm wondering why. Don't forget that that trade occurred prior to seeing what the Canucks would do in free agency. How many posters were open to changing their minds based on what the Canucks do in free agency? You would think that is the reasonable open minded thing to do.




Draft picks are trade currency. You also get to select a prospect that hopefully turns into an NHL player that represents a good value relative to their draft position. I take the position that a team's GM should hear and consider all offers. By default it's not good to be without a first round pick. Not having first round picks in consecutive years can set a franchise back (in the same way missing on your first round pick can).

Anyways, I'm not sure what the issue is. I want Benning to hear all offers and consider them. If you're being offered a player that you typically can't get unless you draft that player, don't you think you should seriously consider acquiring that player? If Colorado offers Makar for this year's first and second I think most of us would say make the trade.

I think I misunderstood the post I was replying to. I thought you meant compete for a cup, not compete for the playoffs. Certainly the Canucks right now are competing for a playoff spot, as are about 24 teams out of the 31 in the league.

I would think the Miller trade a good one if I thought there was a reasonable chance that the team would be competitive for a cup while he's on his current contract. I don't think that's the case, so I don't think it's a good trade.

 

[UK Canuck]

So the team didn’t stockpile picks yet every key position on the team is filled with players we’ve drafted and tons of elite skill... it’s almost like the “we must stockpile picks or else we’re doing everything wrong” narrative was a bunch of malarkey! Say it ain’t so!

is it? I'd argue we're woefully short defensively, particularly in the future(i.e next season) I think the 2019-20 Vancouver Canucks are going to be a better team than the 2020-21 Vancouver Canucks which is a little worrying given we're a bubble team now