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

[DS7]

We have the right player for a contender, just maybe at the wrong time. really all you can say against him.

 

[brock hughes007]

We have the right player for a contender, just maybe at the wrong time. really all you can say against him.

Agree,,this team is still far away from being legit.He has exceeded more then I thought he would.Is he worth the pick right now,,maybe yes,,but it's a long season anything can happen.

 

[F A N]

@FAN : I didn't pose a question to you directly, but I should have. I'm curious to know what your prediction is. Are you more optimistic than I am (see the bolded above)? If my prediction turns out to be correct, and Miller continues to play well, would you think the trade was a win anyway?

I believe that try as they may, teams are rarely successful in building a team up to have a 3-4 year window to contend. The cap makes it very difficult to do so. Just look at the Leafs and Jets. They went through the type of rebuild that you likely approve? Did they go from bottom dwellers to contenders and spend years as contenders? I don't think so. There will be some years where you do take a step back. That's why I think it's better to have the core in place that can help you contend for the Cup and try to make 2-3 runs during their time here.

If you have an aging team and the cupboards are completely bare then I think having a top 3 pick or two will help speed the rebuild along. But at the point of the Miller trade, the Canucks are led by a core of Horvat, Boeser, and Petey up front. Demko has looked promising enough that we are worried about re-signing Markstrom for term. Hughes looks like he'll step right into the lineup. The team just added another top 10 pick and could potentially add another lottery pick if they miss the playoffs. This isn't a case where the team didn't spend enough time at the bottom to acquire high end talent through the draft. The model/successful rebuilds you are thinking of probably didn't have this many top 10 picks.

And I keep asking this but no one has given me an answer. How many elite level players who their teams built a Cup winner around end up missing the playoffs for many years to start their careers? Like I pointed out before, the Blackhawks with Toews and Kane, Penguins with Crosby and Malkin, and Capitals with Ovechkin and Backstrom etc. didn't spend many years missing the playoffs. Kopitar spent 3 years before he got his first taste of the playoffs and Doughty spent one. Tarasenko and O'Reilly made the playoffs during their rookie years. Bergeron, Krejci, and Marchand made the playoffs in their first full NHL seasons (Chara being an outlier). On the opposite end, Tavares and Hall spent many years before they got their first taste of the playoffs. Coincidentally, if they ever win a Cup, it won't be with a team where they were the core piece that their team built a Cup winner around.

So my point is that if Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, and Horvat (Horvat made the playoffs in his rookie year) are going to be good enough to help lead the Canucks to the Stanley Cup, the odds are they won't spend years before they get their first taste of the playoffs.

 

[Lindgren]

I believe that try as they may, teams are rarely successful in building a team up to have a 3-4 year window to contend. The cap makes it very difficult to do so. Just look at the Leafs and Jets. They went through the type of rebuild that you likely approve? Did they go from bottom dwellers to contenders and spend years as contenders? I don't think so. There will be some years where you do take a step back. That's why I think it's better to have the core in place that can help you contend for the Cup and try to make 2-3 runs during their time here.

If you have an aging team and the cupboards are completely bare then I think having a top 3 pick or two will help speed the rebuild along. But at the point of the Miller trade, the Canucks are led by a core of Horvat, Boeser, and Petey up front. Demko has looked promising enough that we are worried about re-signing Markstrom for term. Hughes looks like he'll step right into the lineup. The team just added another top 10 pick and could potentially add another lottery pick if they miss the playoffs. This isn't a case where the team didn't spend enough time at the bottom to acquire high end talent through the draft. The model/successful rebuilds you are thinking of probably didn't have this many top 10 picks.

And I keep asking this but no one has given me an answer. How many elite level players who their teams built a Cup winner around end up missing the playoffs for many years to start their careers? Like I pointed out before, the Blackhawks with Toews and Kane, Penguins with Crosby and Malkin, and Capitals with Ovechkin and Backstrom etc. didn't spend many years missing the playoffs. Kopitar spent 3 years before he got his first taste of the playoffs and Doughty spent one. Tarasenko and O'Reilly made the playoffs during their rookie years. Bergeron, Krejci, and Marchand made the playoffs in their first full NHL seasons (Chara being an outlier). On the opposite end, Tavares and Hall spent many years before they got their first taste of the playoffs. Coincidentally, if they ever win a Cup, it won't be with a team where they were the core piece that their team built a Cup winner around.

So my point is that if Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, and Horvat (Horvat made the playoffs in his rookie year) are going to be good enough to help lead the Canucks to the Stanley Cup, the odds are they won't spend years before they get their first taste of the playoffs.

That's interesting, but it doesn't answer my question about the Miller trade. I don't like the trade, because I think it will only help the team be on the bubble for a couple of years before they fall back. Your more optimistic assessment is interesting to me, and I don't really see anything to argue about there. Time will tell who is right.

My question is, if I'm right, and over the course of Miller's current contract the Canucks don't get up to near the top of their division or win a single playoff round more than once, would you still think the trade was good?

Also, thanks for replying to my post.

 

[VanJack]

It's always heartening that posters on these boards address the long-term issues on this J.T. Miller trade, and debate the wisdom of giving up a first rounder in one of the next two years.

But the reality is when the trade was made, Benning hadn't yet been signed to an extension; and this year Green is basically coaching for his job. So whether the trade works out in the 'long term' really isn't of much concern to these guys. It's all about 'now' for them.

 

[4Twenty]

It's always heartening that posters on these boards address the long-term issues on this J.T. Miller trade, and debate the wisdom of giving up a first rounder in one of the next two years.

But the reality is when the trade was made, Benning hadn't yet been signed to an extension; and this year Green is basically coaching for his job. So whether the trade works out in the 'long term' really isn't of much concern to these guys. It's all about 'now' for them.

Duh?

Obviously these moves were made with job security in question. You should change your username to Captain Obvious.

 

[F A N]

That's interesting, but it doesn't answer my question about the Miller trade. I don't like the trade, because I think it will only help the team be on the bubble for a couple of years before they fall back. Your more optimistic assessment is interesting to me, and I don't really see anything to argue about there. Time will tell who is right.

My question is, if I'm right, and over the course of Miller's current contract the Canucks don't get up to near the top of their division or win a single playoff round more than once, would you still think the trade was good?

Also, thanks for replying to my post.

Assuming that you're talking about the trade being a good value return for the draft picks given up, what you're asking is whether I would think it is a good trade if the Canucks don't end up being a Cup contender (under your definition) despite having Miller play well and produce at a legitimate 1st line winger level right?

My answer is yes. You're getting a 26 year old 1st line winger on a good cap hit and no NTC to go with Horvat, Pettey, and Boeser. If Horvat was 26 instead of 24 would you trade him over the summer? Chance favours the prepared. If you believe you have elite pieces in place such as Petey and Hughes, why are you wasting their early prime years? Instead of worrying about whether the team will ever be good enough over the next 3-4 years why not try to improve the team and try to compete. The recent teams that won multiple Stanley Cups or had multiple periods of contention are led by the same core. If you fail to win a Cup during Petey and Hughes' early years then you can retool and try again with those two in their later prime years. Washington won a Cup with Ovechkin & co. after many years of playoff failures. Or if you go a full-fledged rebuild our core players would at least have some playoff experience under their belts, which would only make them more attractive to other teams looking to contend.

 

[Lindgren]

Assuming that you're talking about the trade being a good value return for the draft picks given up, what you're asking is whether I would think it is a good trade if the Canucks don't end up being a Cup contender (under your definition) despite having Miller play well and produce at a legitimate 1st line winger level right?

My answer is yes. You're getting a 26 year old 1st line winger on a good cap hit and no NTC to go with Horvat, Pettey, and Boeser. If Horvat was 26 instead of 24 would you trade him over the summer? Chance favours the prepared. If you believe you have elite pieces in place such as Petey and Hughes, why are you wasting their early prime years? Instead of worrying about whether the team will ever be good enough over the next 3-4 years why not try to improve the team and try to compete. The recent teams that won multiple Stanley Cups or had multiple periods of contention are led by the same core. If you fail to win a Cup during Petey and Hughes' early years then you can retool and try again with those two in their later prime years. Washington won a Cup with Ovechkin & co. after many years of playoff failures. Or if you go a full-fledged rebuild our core players would at least have some playoff experience under their belts, which would only make them more attractive to other teams looking to contend.

I think of being "good enough" and "try to compete" as the same thing, essentially. You can't "try to compete" in a meaningful way if you're not good enough.

For me, it seems obvious that the timing of a trade has to be a factor in considering whether the trade was good or not. If the team is at a spot where the Miller trade moves them from being bad to being an average bubble team, and that's it, then I think it's a bad trade. I believe it puts the team further from contention, not closer to it.

Yes, I'd be trading Horvat if he were 26. I also expect that Benning will be fired after next season, and that the new management group will be forced to trade Horvat then.

If I'm wrong about the Benning firing, then I predict several more years of being on the bubble, and then regression. I won't be satisfied with that, but I think some posters will be. It seems to me to be a very low bar for success.

Thanks again for replying. I think our exchange does clarify what's behind much of the disagreement about the Miller trade. Those who don't like it think it's badly timed. Though who do don't really think the timing matters that much.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

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

It is when 1st rounder every other year is the entire rebuild for us.

 

[4Twenty]

If the team doesn't become good, then you wasted EP and QH's earlier years anyways, and by moving a 1st to do so, you've limited the "rebuild" you think is coming when they flop.

 

[F A N]

I think of being "good enough" and "try to compete" as the same thing, essentially. You can't "try to compete" in a meaningful way if you're not good enough.

For me, it seems obvious that the timing of a trade has to be a factor in considering whether the trade was good or not. If the team is at a spot where the Miller trade moves them from being bad to being an average bubble team, and that's it, then I think it's a bad trade. I believe it puts the team further from contention, not closer to it.

You're never going to be good enough without actually having good players like JT Miller on the team. JT Miller basically checks every box in terms of addressing the team's weakness. You're trying to build a good team. That involves putting productive NHL players in place and not just hoping a prospect will quickly become that productive NHL player. If Hughes ends up being a finalist for the Calder, that's three straight years the Canucks have had a Calder Finalist. Name 5 teams that have managed that feat. 3 teams? So in terms of the timing issue, at some point you got to try turning those prospects into players. If you're lucky you get Boeser, Petey, and Hughes joining the lineup in consecutive years. If not, you might draft a player like Jakob Vrana or our (formerly) very own Jared McCann who took some years to establish themselves as top 6 level contributors.

Yes, I'd be trading Horvat if he were 26. I also expect that Benning will be fired after next season, and that the new management group will be forced to trade Horvat then.

If I'm wrong about the Benning firing, then I predict several more years of being on the bubble, and then regression. I won't be satisfied with that, but I think some posters will be. It seems to me to be a very low bar for success.

Thanks again for replying. I think our exchange does clarify what's behind much of the disagreement about the Miller trade. Those who don't like it think it's badly timed. Though who do don't really think the timing matters that much.

Thanks and I agree. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement here. I'm not trading a 26 year old Horvat that has 4 years remaining on his contract that has a reasonable cap hit and no NTC, not with Petey, Hughes, and Boeser on the team. In my mind, your philosophy is to suck and tank to the last minute and hoping that the team becomes a contender in a short period of time. If this was in 2014-2015 or 2015-2016 I can agree with that philosophy. But again the Canucks have building blocks in place and added another top 10 pick and might have another lottery pick coming the following year. At some point you need to make a push and if the timing isn't quite right it's only off for like a year IMO.

 

[Lindgren]

You're never going to be good enough without actually having good players like JT Miller on the team. JT Miller basically checks every box in terms of addressing the team's weakness. You're trying to build a good team. That involves putting productive NHL players in place and not just hoping a prospect will quickly become that productive NHL player. If Hughes ends up being a finalist for the Calder, that's three straight years the Canucks have had a Calder Finalist. Name 5 teams that have managed that feat. 3 teams? So in terms of the timing issue, at some point you got to try turning those prospects into players. If you're lucky you get Boeser, Petey, and Hughes joining the lineup in consecutive years. If not, you might draft a player like Jakob Vrana or our (formerly) very own Jared McCann who took some years to establish themselves as top 6 level contributors.



Thanks and I agree. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement here. I'm not trading a 26 year old Horvat that has 4 years remaining on his contract that has a reasonable cap hit and no NTC, not with Petey, Hughes, and Boeser on the team. In my mind, your philosophy is to suck and tank to the last minute and hoping that the team becomes a contender in a short period of time. If this was in 2014-2015 or 2015-2016 I can agree with that philosophy. But again the Canucks have building blocks in place and added another top 10 pick and might have another lottery pick coming the following year. At some point you need to make a push and if the timing isn't quite right it's only off for like a year IMO.

Is there a result for the Canucks that would make you think, in hindsight, that you were wrong about the timing? I've said what would make me think I was wrong. How bad would the Canucks have to be over the course of Miller's contract to make you revise your opinion?

 

[canuckking1]

Pointless in the last 4 games. Worse stretch of the season. Playing selfish hockey and trying to do to much.

 

[Nomobo]

Someone posted that Miller is playing like the real captain of this team and I have to concur. What a strong player!
Far and away the best trade Benning has made, we’d be bottom feeding without him.

 

[IgorGonzola]

You're never going to be good enough without actually having good players like JT Miller on the team. JT Miller basically checks every box in terms of addressing the team's weakness. You're trying to build a good team. That involves putting productive NHL players in place and not just hoping a prospect will quickly become that productive NHL player. If Hughes ends up being a finalist for the Calder, that's three straight years the Canucks have had a Calder Finalist. Name 5 teams that have managed that feat. 3 teams? So in terms of the timing issue, at some point you got to try turning those prospects into players. If you're lucky you get Boeser, Petey, and Hughes joining the lineup in consecutive years. If not, you might draft a player like Jakob Vrana or our (formerly) very own Jared McCann who took some years to establish themselves as top 6 level contributors.



Thanks and I agree. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement here. I'm not trading a 26 year old Horvat that has 4 years remaining on his contract that has a reasonable cap hit and no NTC, not with Petey, Hughes, and Boeser on the team. In my mind, your philosophy is to suck and tank to the last minute and hoping that the team becomes a contender in a short period of time. If this was in 2014-2015 or 2015-2016 I can agree with that philosophy. But again the Canucks have building blocks in place and added another top 10 pick and might have another lottery pick coming the following year. At some point you need to make a push and if the timing isn't quite right it's only off for like a year IMO.

Brian Burke gave the mid season Jim Gregory award to Arizona’s Chayka. Good choice IMO. Chayka has sacrificed a ton of futures for help now by adding vets Stepan (2017 1st), Kessel (prospect - Joseph) and most recently - Hall. Eventually you have to decide, enough with the full tank rebuild in which the Coyotes toiled in for quite awhile. Their kids from the tank years like Keller, Hayton, Soderstrom will benefit greatly from a winning environment and being surrounded by quality vets. I see the same thing happening here. Pettersson, Hughes, Podkolzin, etc., we got enough quality young players to build around, bring on the JT Millers!

 

[F A N]

Is there a result for the Canucks that would make you think, in hindsight, that you were wrong about the timing? I've said what would make me think I was wrong. How bad would the Canucks have to be over the course of Miller's contract to make you revise your opinion?

If the Canucks are essentially out of the playoffs over the next two years by the trade deadline as in previous years, then in hindsight, I would think the timing was off.

Keep in mind that I think the trade wasn't made to "push the Canucks over the hump." The trade was made to add a player who can play with either Horvat or Petey and who is young enough to be in his prime years at the end of his contract. It's a building block move. Some of us here are just trying to impose an arbitrary definition of "timing" without, in most cases, giving consideration to the team's goal when it comes to that move.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Brian Burke gave the mid season Jim Gregory award to Arizona’s Chayka. Good choice IMO. Chayka has sacrificed a ton of futures for help now by adding vets Stepan (2017 1st), Kessel (prospect - Joseph) and most recently - Hall. Eventually you have to decide, enough with the full tank rebuild in which the Coyotes toiled in for quite awhile. Their kids from the tank years like Keller, Hayton, Soderstrom will benefit greatly from a winning environment and being surrounded by quality vets. I see the same thing happening here. Pettersson, Hughes, Podkolzin, etc., we got enough quality young players to build around, bring on the JT Millers!

The difference is Chayka hasn't saddled his team with overpriced, useless players. And if he did, such as taking on Marian Hossa's LTIR contract, he was able to acquire cheap contributing players like Hinostroza and Oesterle as part of the deal. How fantastic would it be to be able to acquire a $6M winger for Horvat from a cap strapped team, or a $6M top pairing defenseman to put alongside Hughes. Instead we have $15M+ tied up in useless contracts.

 

[IgorGonzola]

If the Canucks are essentially out of the playoffs over the next two years by the trade deadline as in previous years, then in hindsight, I would think the timing was off.

Keep in mind that I think the trade wasn't made to "push the Canucks over the hump." The trade was made to add a player who can play with either Horvat or Petey and who is young enough to be in his prime years at the end of his contract. It's a building block move. Some of us here are just trying to impose an arbitrary definition of "timing" without, in most cases, giving consideration to the team's goal when it comes to that move.

It’s funny, and sorry I don’t mean to derail the topic at hand regarding Miller but during my posting marathon yesterday while discussing the merits and metrics of the Granlund expansion protection decision, some opponents here to the JT Miller trade were suggesting that leading up to the Vegas expansion draft Benning’s better option other than protecting Granlund was to give up a “pick” for Marssechault when Florida exposed him. Now I know I’m comparing apples to oranges but I can’t help but feel that that is exactly what Benning did to land a similar type player to Marssechault in JT Miller.

Miller - 14 goals 22 assists
Marssechault - 13 goals 16 assists

Miller - 6’-1” 220 lbs
Marssechault - 5’-9” 180 lbs

 

[Lindgren]

If the Canucks are essentially out of the playoffs over the next two years by the trade deadline as in previous years, then in hindsight, I would think the timing was off.

Keep in mind that I think the trade wasn't made to "push the Canucks over the hump." The trade was made to add a player who can play with either Horvat or Petey and who is young enough to be in his prime years at the end of his contract. It's a building block move. Some of us here are just trying to impose an arbitrary definition of "timing" without, in most cases, giving consideration to the team's goal when it comes to that move.

Thanks for answering (I was thinking about reminding you, and I appreciate you getting to the question).

I don't think differing definitions of timing are arbitrary. I think people just disagree.

We probably also disagree about the duration of a player's "prime years." Miller will be 30 when his current contract ends. He could still be playing at a very high level at that point, but I believe that on average, 30 is considered to be at the end of the prime period. It's likely he'll start to regress. But if things go south, perhaps he could be traded at the deadline for a high pick.

As to the team's goal, if you're correct and management was thinking only about what you speculate they were thinking, I believe management has made a mistake. I think management should always consider what difference the player will make to the team's performance, their position in the standings, and whether the trade makes sense from that perspective.

 

[IgorGonzola]

The difference is Chayka hasn't saddled his team with overpriced, useless players. And if he did, such as taking on Marian Hossa's LTIR contract, he was able to acquire cheap contributing players like Hinostroza and Oesterle as part of the deal. How fantastic would it be to be able to acquire a $6M winger for Horvat from a cap strapped team, or a $6M top pairing defenseman to put alongside Hughes. Instead we have $15M+ tied up in useless contracts.

Thanks Peter, I looked up the Arizona Yotes payroll and it seems that you have a valid point, although I was shocked as to how much Schmaltz is getting and for how long, can’t say I’m a fan of his. Yotes sure gave up a ton of futures for Stepan, Kessel and Hall. I guess we have to see how those trades turn out for all parties involved after the dust settles. Will Hall sign there? Can’t say I’m a huge fan of Hall either.

Kessel - 8 goals 13 assists - 32 years old with a cap hit of $6.8 million for two years after this.

Schmaltz - 6 goals 25 assists - $5.85 Million cap hit for 6 years after this

Demers - 0 goals 5 assists - 31 years old a cap hit of $4 million for 1 more year after this

Stepan - 6 goals 6 assists - 29 years of age - $6.5 Million cap hit for one more year after this

Grabner - 8 goals 3 assists - 32 years of age - $3.35 Million cap hit for one more year after this

Raanta - goalie - 30 years of age - $4.2 Million cap hit for one more year after this

 

[F A N]

The difference is Chayka hasn't saddled his team with overpriced, useless players. And if he did, such as taking on Marian Hossa's LTIR contract, he was able to acquire cheap contributing players like Hinostroza and Oesterle as part of the deal. How fantastic would it be to be able to acquire a $6M winger for Horvat from a cap strapped team, or a $6M top pairing defenseman to put alongside Hughes. Instead we have $15M+ tied up in useless contracts.

Ya great asset management:

Draft Pierre-Olivier Joseph 23rd overall in 2017.
Trade Domi for Galchenyuk.
Trade Galchenyuk + POJ for 32 year old Kessel + 4th round pick.

What about DeAngelo + 7th overall pick for Stepan and Raanta? Stepan has another year left on his $6.5M AAV contract and he put up 15 goals and 35 points last season. This season he has 6 goals and 12 points.

Chayka's strategy for cap management appears to be lock his young players in long term and betting that they are core players going forward. That's great when that player continues to develop. It's not so great when they don't. For example, Dvorak just started a 6 year $4.45M AAV contract. His last two season's production looks similar to Virtanen's.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Someone posted that Miller is playing like the real captain of this team and I have to concur. What a strong player!
Far and away the best trade Benning has made, we’d be bottom feeding without him.

While the trade currently looks pretty decent, we don't even know where our pick will end up or what prospects will be available with the pick. The pick could very well be a top 5 pick in 2021, which I would prefer over a 28 year old ~70 point winger.

Carcone for Leivo is objectively the best trade Benning has made given how easy it is to judge.

 

[xtra]

What’s your definition of over the hump.

You seem content with just making the playoffs as over the hump which is pathetic.

Does miller push us over the hump to being a cup contender? - not at all

so giving up a first to be first round exit team is stupid in my mind. That first round pick is more valuable adding to the core age group.

 

[Numba9]

Thanks Peter, I looked up the Arizona Yotes payroll and it seems that you have a valid point, although I was shocked as to how much Schmaltz is getting and for how long, can’t say I’m a fan of his. Yotes sure gave up a ton of futures for Stepan, Kessel and Hall. I guess we have to see how those trades turn out for all parties involved after the dust settles. Will Hall sign there? Can’t say I’m a huge fan of Hall either.

Kessel - 8 goals 13 assists - 32 years old with a cap hit of $6.8 million for two years after this.

Schmaltz - 6 goals 25 assists - $5.85 Million cap hit for 6 years after this

Demers - 0 goals 5 assists - 31 years old a cap hit of $4 million for 1 more year after this

Stepan - 6 goals 6 assists - 29 years of age - $6.5 Million cap hit for one more year after this

Grabner - 8 goals 3 assists - 32 years of age - $3.35 Million cap hit for one more year after this

Raanta - goalie - 30 years of age - $4.2 Million cap hit for one more year after this

They basically have two Loui’s of their own in Kessel and Stepan. Most teams have players that are making too much.

 

[IgorGonzola]

They basically have two Loui’s of their own in Kessel and Stepan. Most teams have players that are making too much.

In my short existence here I get the sense that some think this only happens to Benning