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

[F A N]

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.

No problem and thanks for your replies as well. I enjoy the discussion. I think it's arbitrary because some, like you, are thinking in terms of whether the trade would make the Canucks a "contender" under your definition of contender. It doesn't. Neither would a first round pick that isn't a superstar level player.

I think a lot of posters here think that the Chicago(with Kane and Toews) and Penguins (with Crosby and Malkin) Cup winning ways where you essentially go from bottom to the top in a span of a couple of years can be repeated and serves as a good model. My opinion is that's rare and shouldn't serve as a model. It's best to identify your core group and build around them and try to make a couple of runs during that core's prime. Winning the Cup isn't easy. The Canucks have failed to win the Cup in the past 50 years.

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.

I don't think we disagree about the duration of a player's "prime years." What I was saying is that the Canucks are getting Miller for 4 years when he is between age 26-29. Those I consider to be typically a player's late prime years. It appears that you agree.

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.

I'm a bit confused. I agree that "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." Every advanced stat analysis I have seen suggests that Miller checks pretty much all the boxes that the Canucks needed to improve on. I think Miller has delivered and has improved this team to the point that the Canucks are legitimate playoff contenders. I think the consensus is that up front the team needs or could use another top 6 winger and with that in mind, if you don't have Miller then the team needs 2.

Again, I think just because you disagree with the conclusion doesn't mean that management's conclusions are unreasonable. It's reasonable that they saw Miller as a bounce back candidate who should be a great fit on the team and anticipate making other moves that would bolster the team's chances of making the playoffs. It's also reasonable for teams who think they have their top 2 Cs in place to look for complimentary wingers for them. With Miller playing with Petey and Boeser, the discussion over Horvat's revolving door of wingers have continued this season.

 

[Lindgren]

No problem and thanks for your replies as well. I enjoy the discussion. (1) I think it's arbitrary because some, like you, are thinking in terms of whether the trade would make the Canucks a "contender" under your definition of contender. It doesn't. Neither would a first round pick that isn't a superstar level player.

I think a lot of posters here think that the Chicago(with Kane and Toews) and Penguins (with Crosby and Malkin) Cup winning ways where you essentially go from bottom to the top in a span of a couple of years can be repeated and serves as a good model. My opinion is that's rare and shouldn't serve as a model. (2) It's best to identify your core group and build around them and try to make a couple of runs during that core's prime. Winning the Cup isn't easy. The Canucks have failed to win the Cup in the past 50 years.



(3) I don't think we disagree about the duration of a player's "prime years." What I was saying is that the Canucks are getting Miller for 4 years when he is between age 26-29. Those I consider to be typically a player's late prime years. It appears that you agree.



I'm a bit confused. I agree that "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." (4) Every advanced stat analysis I have seen suggests that Miller checks pretty much all the boxes that the Canucks needed to improve on. I think Miller has delivered and has improved this team to the point that the Canucks are legitimate playoff contenders. I think the consensus is that up front the team needs or could use another top 6 winger and with that in mind, if you don't have Miller then the team needs 2.

(5) Again, I think just because you disagree with the conclusion doesn't mean that management's conclusions are unreasonable. It's reasonable that they saw Miller as a bounce back candidate who should be a great fit on the team and anticipate making other moves that would bolster the team's chances of making the playoffs. It's also reasonable for teams who think they have their top 2 Cs in place to look for complimentary wingers for them. With Miller playing with Petey and Boeser, the discussion over Horvat's revolving door of wingers have continued this season.

Bolded 1: What you've identified isn't arbitrary; it's a disagreement.

Bolded 2: Sure, you have to identify your core group. And you need to be right about that identification. I think management is too optimistic about their young core; they need to add more good young players, the type typically acquired with high picks, and add players such as Miller later—say a couple of seasons from now.

Bolded 3 and 4: In your earlier post you said this: "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." At the end of his contract he'll be 30, which isn't his prime. Certainly he's a good player and a good fit with Horvat and Pettersson, but as you described it, that's emphasized to the exclusion of whether he will help the team contend (above you say that the Canucks are indeed a contender now, and if you're right, then absolutely the trade makes sense).

Bodled 5: All of this could be true, and if the result is that the team becomes mediocre—a bubble playoff team that never gets out of the first round, and doesn't have more elite prospects on the way because its picks aren't high enough—then the trade is one misguided move out of many. This is our disagreement: it's not whether Miller is a good player, whether he fits with others on the team, whether he's good value for a first round pick, etc. It's about the timing. You think the Canucks timed it right: they're now a contender. I think they blew it: they're now mediocre and destined to remain so until they sink back and try again.

When people disagree, it's progress if they can at least agree about what the nature of their disagreement is. When those who support the trade point to how well Miller is playing as evidence that critics of the trade are wrong, they're misunderstanding, perhaps willfully, what the disagreement is. (There are other objections to the trade, certainly: that there are indications that the Canucks didn't make a serious attempt to negotiate, that they could have taken more advantage of Tampa's need to unload salary, but in my view these are tangential. The key objection has to do, again, with timing.)

 

[Peter Griffin]

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.

The Domi/Galchenyuk trade was bad, I’ll give you that. But you’re really going to attack Chayka for making the Kessel trade while Benning made an even bigger blunder moving similar assets for Erik freaking Gudbranson? Come on.

I’m not saying Chayka is perfect, far from it. But his so-called cap anchors, Kessel and Stepan, are at least contributing at the NHL level.

 

[F A N]

The Domi/Galchenyuk trade was bad, I’ll give you that. But you’re really going to attack Chayka for making the Kessel trade while Benning made an even bigger blunder moving similar assets for Erik freaking Gudbranson? Come on.

What you responded to was this: "Chayka has sacrificed a ton of futures for help now by adding vets Stepan (2017 1st), Kessel (prospect - Joseph) and most recently - Hall." In that sense, at least Gudbranson was a 24 year old right shot RD.

I'm not really attacking Chayka for trading Kessel. I don't think the Coyotes gave up much for Kessel in a vacuum. But he's 32 years old. That Stepan trade is similar to the JT Miller trade except Stepan's contract was for $6.5M AAV, is a year older, and Chayka actually traded the 7th overall pick that could have been Petey.

 

[Peter Griffin]

What you responded to was this: "Chayka has sacrificed a ton of futures for help now by adding vets Stepan (2017 1st), Kessel (prospect - Joseph) and most recently - Hall." In that sense, at least Gudbranson was a 24 year old right shot RD.

I'm not really attacking Chayka for trading Kessel. I don't think the Coyotes gave up much for Kessel in a vacuum. But he's 32 years old. That Stepan trade is similar to the JT Miller trade except Stepan's contract was for $6.5M AAV, is a year older, and Chayka actually traded the 7th overall pick that could have been Petey.

So what exactly was your point? I simply stated that Jim Benning has saddled this team with $15M+ of useless contracts and John Chayka hasn’t. The big contracts Chayka has acquired are at least contributing.

 

[F A N]

Bolded 1: What you've identified isn't arbitrary; it's a disagreement.

It's arbitrary because your "disagreement" is based on your own arbitrary definition of what the Canucks are trying to "time." Let's put it this way, if what the Canucks are trying to do is to push for the playoffs starting this season or next, do you disagree with their timing? What if what the Canucks are trying to do is to make the playoffs starting this year or the next? Do you still disagree with the timing?

Bolded 2: Sure, you have to identify your core group. And you need to be right about that identification. I think management is too optimistic about their young core; they need to add more good young players, the type typically acquired with high picks, and add players such as Miller later—say a couple of seasons from now.

Their core is Petey, Hughes, Boeser, and Horvat. Let's say they don't have a 5th. Which team has a core of under 25 year old players that you prefer over those for AND goes 5 or 6 deep? Meanwhile, Miller is 26 and adds to the group.

Bolded 3 and 4: In your earlier post you said this: "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." At the end of his contract he'll be 30, which isn't his prime. Certainly he's a good player and a good fit with Horvat and Pettersson, but as you described it, that's emphasized to the exclusion of whether he will help the team contend (above you say that the Canucks are indeed a contender now, and if you're right, then absolutely the trade makes sense).

Sure if you want to be absolutely technical. But what age is he starting the last year of his contract? Ya it's 29.

Bodled 5: All of this could be true, and if the result is that the team becomes mediocre—a bubble playoff team that never gets out of the first round, and doesn't have more elite prospects on the way because its picks aren't high enough—then the trade is one misguided move out of many. This is our disagreement: it's not whether Miller is a good player, whether he fits with others on the team, whether he's good value for a first round pick, etc. It's about the timing. You think the Canucks timed it right: they're now a contender. I think they blew it: they're now mediocre and destined to remain so until they sink back and try again.

And how would that 1st round pick 2 years later help with the Canucks to not be a bubble team and get out of the first round? JT Miller remains an asset no?

When people disagree, it's progress if they can at least agree about what the nature of their disagreement is. When those who support the trade point to how well Miller is playing as evidence that critics of the trade are wrong, they're misunderstanding, perhaps willfully, what the disagreement is. (There are other objections to the trade, certainly: that there are indications that the Canucks didn't make a serious attempt to negotiate, that they could have taken more advantage of Tampa's need to unload salary, but in my view these are tangential. The key objection has to do, again, with timing.)

Except those same people you are trying to paint in good light aren't agreeing to the nature of what the other side is arguing either. In my mind, what you're saying is "I disagree with the timing and that's all I want to argue" whereas others are saying "We disagree with your timing argument but to us I don't really care because look at the results!"

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Our core pre Miller trade is EP, Hughes, Boeser, Horvat and one of Markstrom/Demko
Which team has a “core” consists more than 5 players?
It’s almost impossible under the cap system

 

[VanJack]

For a lottery team that's failed to yet prove that it can finish above the playoff bar, trading your first round draft pick is never a good idea.

But Miller comes as close to proving that old adage wrong as any player you can imagine. He anchors the first unit pp; can play center or wing with equal facility; and is one of the top faceoff guys in the entire league. He has a laser beam for a shot; and can slot on to any line when Green needs a spark to get them going. He's on pace for a career year point-wise, and even kills penalties when the coach needs him.

In short, he's the complete package...and only 26 and on a cost-controlled $5.2m contract for the next three seasons after this one, which seems like a huge bargain relative to what he produces.

So if the Canucks were coming off a playoff year, J.T. Miller would be a major find...just the kind of guy to help drive you higher in the standings. But when you haven't actually made the playoffs yet, it's always going to be a gamble.

But hands up anyone who actually thought at the start of the season he'd turn out to be this good?. I definitely don't think Tampa thought he was this good.

 

[Lindgren]

It's arbitrary because your "disagreement" is based on your own arbitrary definition of what the Canucks are trying to "time." Let's put it this way, if what the Canucks are trying to do is to push for the playoffs starting this season or next, do you disagree with their timing? What if what the Canucks are trying to do is to make the playoffs starting this year or the next? Do you still disagree with the timing?

If what the Canucks are trying to do is push for the playoffs, trading for Miller is a very smart thing to do. What I "defined" was what being a "contender" is, and you could well disagree with my definition, but my definition isn't arbitrary. If it is, so is yours, and we have nothing to discuss.


Their core is Petey, Hughes, Boeser, and Horvat. Let's say they don't have a 5th. Which team has a core of under 25 year old players that you prefer over those for AND goes 5 or 6 deep? Meanwhile, Miller is 26 and adds to the group.

I'm no expert in other teams. I don't think that the Canucks are ready to contend. You do. We'll see who's right. Wanna bet? I bet that the Canucks won't get out of the first round during Miller's current contract.


Sure if you want to be absolutely technical. But what age is he starting the last year of his contract? Ya it's 29.

And when his contract ends he's 30. He's in his prime through the course of his contract, and out of it when it's over. That's not "absolutely technical": that's where he is at the end of the contract.


And how would that 1st round pick 2 years later help with the Canucks to not be a bubble team and get out of the first round? JT Miller remains an asset no?

Let's say the Canucks didn't make the Miller trade, and without him they'd be worse off, perhaps picking in the top ten again. That pick would be in a position to help the team two years later, if he tracked the way several of the other recent Benning picks have. He'd be entering his prime at the time Miller would be leaving his.


Except those same people you are trying to paint in good light aren't agreeing to the nature of what the other side is arguing either. In my mind, what you're saying is "I disagree with the timing and that's all I want to argue" whereas others are saying "We disagree with your timing argument but to us I don't really care because look at the results!"

I agree that's what they're saying: they look at the results -- Miller is scoring -- and they don't care about the timing. They don't care whether the trade will take the Canucks closer to cup contention. It's useful to make that clear. One poster doesn't like the trade, because however well Miller plays, he doesn't like the timing and doesn't think it will get the team closer to a cup. A different poster likes the trade, because Miller plays well and scores points, and he doesn't care whether that means the Canucks are closer to cup contention.

 

[Numba9]

I agree that's what they're saying: they look at the results -- Miller is scoring -- and they don't care about the timing. They don't care whether the trade will take the Canucks closer to cup contention. It's useful to make that clear. One poster doesn't like the trade, because however well Miller plays, he doesn't like the timing and doesn't think it will get the team closer to a cup. A different poster likes the trade, because Miller plays well and scores points, and he doesn't care whether that means the Canucks are closer to cup contention.

What is your position on the Rangers signing Trouba and Panarin? Wrong timing since they are now a middling team?

 

[Lindgren]

What is your position on the Rangers signing Trouba and Panarin? Wrong timing since they are now a middling team?

Maybe? I don't follow other teams very closely. If it seems to you that those players could help the Rangers become cup contenders in the foreseeable future, that'd be a point in the move's favour. If it seems to you that the acquisitions will, in the long run, make it more difficult for the Rangers to contend, that would be a point against.

It certainly seems to me that it's common for teams to be too optimistic and to end their rebuild too quickly, but that's just my impression. Maybe it never happens, except now, to the Canucks.

It seems odd to me that my general position should be at all controversial. Management should make moves that are designed to help the team compete for a cup, and timing matters.

The Canucks could get better right now by packaging all their current prospects, from Podkolzin to DiPietro, along with draft picks, to get rid of bad contracts and pick up vets who would improve the team. Those moves would be universally panned, because it would appear that though the team might make a small step forward now, everyone would expect they would soon be taking a big step back. The goal isn't always incremental short-term improvement.

If we disagree about whether the Miller trade is timed correctly, that's fine. I respect that. I'll ask you the same thing I asked Fan. Do you think the Canucks will win a playoff round while Miller is on his current contract? I don't.

 

[Numba9]

Maybe? I don't follow other teams very closely. If it seems to you that those players could help the Rangers become cup contenders in the foreseeable future, that'd be a point in the move's favour. If it seems to you that the acquisitions will, in the long run, make it more difficult for the Rangers to contend, that would be a point against.

It certainly seems to me that it's common for teams to be too optimistic and to end their rebuild too quickly, but that's just my impression. Maybe it never happens, except now, to the Canucks.

It seems odd to me that my general position should be at all controversial. Management should make moves that are designed to help the team compete for a cup, and timing matters.

The Canucks could get better right now by packaging all their current prospects, from Podkolzin to DiPietro, along with draft picks, to get rid of bad contracts and pick up vets who would improve the team. Those moves would be universally panned, because it would appear that though the team might make a small step forward now, everyone would expect they would soon be taking a big step back. The goal isn't always incremental short-term improvement.

If we disagree about whether the Miller trade is timed correctly, that's fine. I respect that. I'll ask you the same thing I asked Fan. Do you think the Canucks will win a playoff round while Miller is on his current contract? I don't.

The reality is that teams care more about making the playoffs than winning the cup. This fan rebuild scenario where teams stink, keep trying to draft franchise players until they get a sign that tells them it's time to compete for a cup is not happening any more. Teams feel that if they make the playoffs consistently and draft well anything can happen. I don't know why we are holding Benning to a standard that doesn't exist in today's NHL. Three more years of Miller is a very long time, lots of thing can and will change.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

For a lottery team that's failed to yet prove that it can finish above the playoff bar, trading your first round draft pick is never a good idea.

But Miller comes as close to proving that old adage wrong as any player you can imagine. He anchors the first unit pp; can play center or wing with equal facility; and is one of the top faceoff guys in the entire league. He has a laser beam for a shot; and can slot on to any line when Green needs a spark to get them going. He's on pace for a career year point-wise, and even kills penalties when the coach needs him.

In short, he's the complete package...and only 26 and on a cost-controlled $5.2m contract for the next three seasons after this one, which seems like a huge bargain relative to what he produces.

So if the Canucks were coming off a playoff year, J.T. Miller would be a major find...just the kind of guy to help drive you higher in the standings. But when you haven't actually made the playoffs yet, it's always going to be a gamble.

But hands up anyone who actually thought at the start of the season he'd turn out to be this good?. I definitely don't think Tampa thought he was this good.

I knew he’d at least be 60 points good because he’s been killing it for me in fantasy for years. I’m not surprised either. He did show signs of this breakout in Tampa when he played on the top line there for like 20 games he was a point a game guy with premium tools. Calling it a gamble is disrespecting / discrediting the good work put in at every level of the organization that got Benning to the point where he had the chance to make a great decision to invest that much for Miller which looks like a steal right now not even a year later. The pro scouting of course probably deserves a great deal of credit here too. (Most of it belonging to Miller of course)

 

[F A N]

I agree that's what they're saying: they look at the results -- Miller is scoring -- and they don't care about the timing. They don't care whether the trade will take the Canucks closer to cup contention. It's useful to make that clear. One poster doesn't like the trade, because however well Miller plays, he doesn't like the timing and doesn't think it will get the team closer to a cup. A different poster likes the trade, because Miller plays well and scores points, and he doesn't care whether that means the Canucks are closer to cup contention.

Why are you bolding everything?

Anyhow, what gets the team closer to cup contention? Does adding a 26 year old first line winger with 4 years left on a reasonable contract help a team closer to cup contention? No? Explain why that isn't.

To me, given the fact that you would have traded Horvat if he was 26 this season, you're under the illusion that teams have a predictable window of "cup contention." That's simply not the case. How long did the Jets' Cup contention last? Did they not draft and develop the way you wanted the Canucks to do?

 

[4Twenty]

Why are you bolding everything?

Anyhow, what gets the team closer to cup contention? Does adding a 26 year old first line winger with 4 years left on a reasonable contract help a team closer to cup contention? No? Explain why that isn't.

To me, given the fact that you would have traded Horvat if he was 26 this season, you're under the illusion that teams have a predictable window of "cup contention." That's simply not the case. How long did the Jets' Cup contention last? Did they not draft and develop the way you wanted the Canucks to do?

The Jets apparently being out of their window should be cause for pause no? They drafted better. Assembled better talent. Had a better age gap. Managed the cap better. And now their window is over once their elites are not on ELC’s? Is that your position?

 

[F A N]

So what exactly was your point? I simply stated that Jim Benning has saddled this team with $15M+ of useless contracts and John Chayka hasn’t. The big contracts Chayka has acquired are at least contributing.

We all made different posts here despite "quoting" each other.

Who actually comprises of that $15M+ you speak of?

Anyhow, my point is that trading valuable futures for older players with $$$ contracts who are "contributors" but severely under-performing relative to their contracts is worse than signing UFAs who are lesser contributors than the aforementioned players. I rather the Canucks sign a Louie Eriksson than trade the 7th overall pick for what the Coyotes got out of/are getting out of Stepan.

 

[F A N]

The Jets apparently being out of their window should be cause for pause no? They drafted better. Assembled better talent. Had a better age gap. Managed the cap better. And now their window is over once their elites are not on ELC’s? Is that your position?

No. I have frequently expressed my opinion that the Jets wasted their core. When Chevaldayoff took over the team, Wheeler, Kane, Byfuglien, Ladd, and Little were all under 26 except for Byfuglien who was 26. They also just drafted Scheifele. The Jets could be said as Cup contenders 6-7 seasons later. By then, Wheeler and Byfuglien were 31 and 32. Little was 29.

But considering your point, if the Jets apparently being out of their window should be cause for pause, shouldn't a team try to make a run when their elites are still on their ELC?

 

[Lindgren]

Why are you bolding everything?

Anyhow, what gets the team closer to cup contention? Does adding a 26 year old first line winger with 4 years left on a reasonable contract help a team closer to cup contention? No? Explain why that isn't.

To me, given the fact that you would have traded Horvat if he was 26 this season, you're under the illusion that teams have a predictable window of "cup contention." That's simply not the case. How long did the Jets' Cup contention last? Did they not draft and develop the way you wanted the Canucks to do?

I bolded to try to make it easier to read: distinguishing my comments from yours, posted within your original post. No offence intended.

Adding a good player can bring a team closer to contention, or it can put them further away. As I continue to say, it depends on the timing of the trade, the age of the players, etc. Is this not obvious? Is it not universally accepted that in some circumstances it doesn't make sense for teams to trade away draft picks for good veterans? Are you really saying that for all teams at all times it would make sense to trade a first for a player like Miller, on a contract like his? I really don't believe you think that. I think you accept that an evaluation has to be made, as to whether the timing is right for the team to make that deal.

If, instead of Vancouver, Detroit had traded a first to Tampa, with the same conditions as Vancouver accepted, for Miller, would that have been a good move? Would it have brought Detroit closer to contention, or would it have pushed them back, because they'd fail to get the high first they'd receive otherwise, and through the duration of Miller's contract they'd be very unlikely to make the playoffs? I'd say the latter. They would have improved their team in the short term, and in the medium and long term they'd be further from contention.

The famous Iginla/Nieuwendyk trade brought both teams closer to contention. Why did that trade make sense for Calgary?

It isn't easy for teams to predict their windows. But they have to try. They can try and still fail, but if they don't try, they'll have no over-all strategy, and the results are more likely to be bad.

 

[4Twenty]

No. I have frequently expressed my opinion that the Jets wasted their core. When Chevaldayoff took over the team, Wheeler, Kane, Byfuglien, Ladd, and Little were all under 26 except for Byfuglien who was 26. They also just drafted Scheifele. The Jets could be said as Cup contenders 6-7 seasons later. By then, Wheeler and Byfuglien were 31 and 32. Little was 29.

But considering your point, if the Jets apparently being out of their window should be cause for pause, shouldn't a team try to make a run when their elites are still on their ELC?

I mean yeah you hope that after 6 years of mgmt they’d be more advanced than they are so they could be adding a JT Miller to a better roster rather than this one heavily invested with veterans in the bottom 6. Like the jets of the last few seasons renting Stastny and Hayes when they were already a contender.


That Jets group from the Atlanta days wasn’t very good. I don’t see how they wasted it when it wasn’t good. It wasn’t until moving to Winnipeg and adding the core they have now other than Trouba that they became contenders IMO.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Good discussion. I am fan of Miller but we do not know the cost or the trajectory of team. If Canucks place second in division and win first round and TB gets B level prospect in this draft then yeh great trade. If team craters we miss playoffs for two years giving up lottery pick to TB, there will be blood. However even in the second scenario the team could get a very good package for 28 year old Miller. It does not stop next gm from improving team. Anyone who thinks team should not have gotten Miller should be looking to trade Horvat for a possible lottery pick because Miller is a much better player and only 2 years older. If team is not ready to win in next two years then what is point of 26 year old Horvat? It would be similar to Colorado turning over its good mid 20 players. I rather keep both Miller and Horvat for now but if in 2 years team does not win turn them over for assets to build underneath Hughes, Petterson, Boeser. Either way Miller is a great asset for now and future or team, and should be more valuable then protected pick as long as he continues strong play.

 

[F A N]

That Jets group from the Atlanta days wasn’t very good. I don’t see how they wasted it when it wasn’t good. It wasn’t until moving to Winnipeg and adding the core they have now other than Trouba that they became contenders IMO.

And who were the key players during the short time they were contenders? Wheeler and Byfuglien certainly. Those two were arguably 2 of the 3 best Jets during their time as "contenders." Yet they waited until they were over 31+ to become Cup contenders? You have a 25 year old Byfuglien and 26 year old Wheeler and you wait until they are 31+ to make a run at the Cup?

Swapping out core players doesn't do much for the franchise. Imagine if Gillis decided to rebuild with the Sedins and Kesler since they weren't very good the previous seasons. Imagine if Gillis, like the Jets' GM, did nothing but draft and rebuild, make zero trades, and make minimal UFA additions. What do you think would happen?

Crosby and Malkin won their first Cups when they were 21/22. They won their 2nd Cup when they were 28/29. Boston are again contenders and they are led by players who played key roles in 2011. If you look at star players who have won multiple Cups that weren't consecutive, they tend to win the Cup when they were pretty young. They certainly didn't spend years missing the playoffs waiting for their GM to build a "Cup Contender" around them.

 

[F A N]

Adding a good player can bring a team closer to contention, or it can put them further away. As I continue to say, it depends on the timing of the trade, the age of the players, etc. Is this not obvious? Is it not universally accepted that in some circumstances it doesn't make sense for teams to trade away draft picks for good veterans? Are you really saying that for all teams at all times it would make sense to trade a first for a player like Miller, on a contract like his? I really don't believe you think that. I think you accept that an evaluation has to be made, as to whether the timing is right for the team to make that deal.

If you are in Year 1 of the rebuild and or the prospect/young player cupboard is bare then I agree that it doesn't make sense to trade for a player like Miller. But we are talking about a team who has had a top 10 pick in 6 out of the last 7 years. Out of those picks you have Hughes, Petey, and Horvat and added Boeser to that group with a late 1st. At some point you have to believe that you can afford to trade a 1st round pick for immediate help. You also have a 29 year old potential top 10 goalie who you don't think have an issue re-signing.

If, instead of Vancouver, Detroit had traded a first to Tampa, with the same conditions as Vancouver accepted, for Miller, would that have been a good move? Would it have brought Detroit closer to contention, or would it have pushed them back, because they'd fail to get the high first they'd receive otherwise, and through the duration of Miller's contract they'd be very unlikely to make the playoffs? I'd say the latter. They would have improved their team in the short term, and in the medium and long term they'd be further from contention.

Last year, their best player was Dylan Larkin who outproduced Petey. Do you think Larkin is in the same class as Petey? Athanasou scored 30 goals, do you think he is better than Boeser? I think the Canucks have a better roster and a better collection of young core players to build around.

The famous Iginla/Nieuwendyk trade brought both teams closer to contention. Why did that trade make sense for Calgary?

It isn't easy for teams to predict their windows. But they have to try. They can try and still fail, but if they don't try, they'll have no over-all strategy, and the results are more likely to be bad.[/QUOTE]

Okay... so the Flames weren't initially looking to trade Niewendyk. They had trouble signing Nieuwendyk and traded him for a recently drafted player. If the Canucks have trouble signing Horvat at the end of his deal I would say trade him.

As for Dallas, they made the playoffs within 2 years of Niewendyk's acquisitions. More importantly, they won a Cup in the 4th season Niewendyk was with the team and Niewendyk won the Conn Smyth. If the Canucks win the Cup in year 4 of Miller's contract with Miller winning the Conn Smyth, would you not agree that the trade was a great trade for the Canucks?

 

[Lindgren]

If you are in Year 1 of the rebuild and or the prospect/young player cupboard is bare then I agree that it doesn't make sense to trade for a player like Miller. But we are talking about a team who has had a top 10 pick in 6 out of the last 7 years. Out of those picks you have Hughes, Petey, and Horvat and added Boeser to that group with a late 1st. At some point you have to believe that you can afford to trade a 1st round pick for immediate help. You also have a 29 year old potential top 10 goalie who you don't think have an issue re-signing.



Last year, their best player was Dylan Larkin who outproduced Petey. Do you think Larkin is in the same class as Petey? Athanasou scored 30 goals, do you think he is better than Boeser? I think the Canucks have a better roster and a better collection of young core players to build around.



It isn't easy for teams to predict their windows. But they have to try. They can try and still fail, but if they don't try, they'll have no over-all strategy, and the results are more likely to be bad.

Okay... so the Flames weren't initially looking to trade Niewendyk. They had trouble signing Nieuwendyk and traded him for a recently drafted player. If the Canucks have trouble signing Horvat at the end of his deal I would say trade him.

As for Dallas, they made the playoffs within 2 years of Niewendyk's acquisitions. More importantly, they won a Cup in the 4th season Niewendyk was with the team and Niewendyk won the Conn Smyth. If the Canucks win the Cup in year 4 of Miller's contract with Miller winning the Conn Smyth, would you not agree that the trade was a great trade for the Canucks?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely! 100%! I'd even agree it was a very good trade if the Canucks made the conference finals during that time.

Earlier, you specified an outcome that would make you change your mind and think the trade wasn't good. But then you gave me the impression you were moving away from that position, that you were saying because of Miller's play, the trade was good regardless of any evaluation of the timing. All I'm saying is that timing has to be part of it. That's it.

I think the timing is bad, you think it's good. That's a clear disagreement, and time will tell who is right. But the conversation seems to keep sliding back and getting muddied.

 

[4Twenty]

I can’t tell your answer FAN. Would you have thought it reasonable for Detroit to trade for JT Miller this summer?


Is there a team it would’ve made absolutely no sense to? Why?


Are there teams that you think are best suited to have made the move other than Vancouver.


I don’t agree on your stances on the Jets at all. Scheifele, Trouba, Hellebuyck, Morrissey and Laina were the stars that pushed them into contending. Along with Ehlers and Connor plus the vets from Atlanta days.

 

[4Twenty]

Okay... so the Flames weren't initially looking to trade Niewendyk. They had trouble signing Nieuwendyk and traded him for a recently drafted player. If the Canucks have trouble signing Horvat at the end of his deal I would say trade him.

As for Dallas, they made the playoffs within 2 years of Niewendyk's acquisitions. More importantly, they won a Cup in the 4th season Niewendyk was with the team and Niewendyk won the Conn Smyth. If the Canucks win the Cup in year 4 of Miller's contract with Miller winning the Conn Smyth, would you not agree that the trade was a great trade for the Canucks?

Absolutely! 100%! I'd even agree it was a very good trade if the Canucks made the conference finals during that time.

Earlier, you specified an outcome that would make you change your mind and think the trade wasn't good. But then you gave me the impression you were moving away from that position, that you were saying because of Miller's play, the trade was good regardless of any evaluation of the timing. All I'm saying is that timing has to be part of it. That's it.

I think the timing is bad, you think it's good. That's a clear disagreement, and time will tell who is right. But the conversation seems to keep sliding back and getting muddied.

Not even sure he thinks it’s good timing. I think he’s just explaining why they chose to do it and why he supports their choice.

It’s my understanding that timing isn’t important to FAN and others because it’s too hard to predict when your window is open so if you’ve drafted 3-4 talents that’s enough to try and force the window open.

I don’t really disagree with the general strategy but it’s when you specifically look at how these current Canucks are built where this strategy may have been entered a touch too soon as there’s a lot of junk tied up on the cap.