There aren't many examples because it's extremely rare for a non-playoff team to be stupid enough to trade a future #1 pick. It doesn't happen often, and when it does it usually blows up spectacularly.
Player Discussion What do we have in J.T. Miller?
- Thread starter Tables of Stats
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
There aren't many examples because it's extremely rare for a non-playoff team to be stupid enough to trade a future #1 pick. It doesn't happen often, and when it does it usually blows up spectacularly.
Tobi Wan Kenobi
Registered User
Boeser was most dangerous in his rookie season playing with Horvat. Whether that was because of chem with Bo or it being prior to the back injury but he hasn't been as dangerous since. I'd like to try Bo and Brock again
Miller Pettersson Leivo
Ferland Horvat Boeser
Pearson Gaudette Sutter
Schaller Beagle Virtanen
I thought I posted in this thread this summer about the non-playoff teams that traded 1st rounders....very few have been successful.
16-17 Coyotes (70 pts) traded a 1st (Lias Andersson) for Stepan and Raanta. Still hasn't paid off.
June '16 Toronto (69 pts) traded a 1st for Frederik Andersen. This one looks good so far, but circumstances like the Leafs adding Matthews/Marner shaped that.
June '15 LA (95pts..but missed playoffs) traded a 1st for Lucic. Didn't work especially well IMO.
Oct '13 NYI (79 points) traded a 1st plus for Thomas Vanek....flopped.
July '13 Ottawa (playoff team) traded a 1st for Bobby Ryan. Not a horrible deal, but again, they were a playoff team so not a great comparison.
June '13 NJ (non playoff team) traded 9th overall for a goalie with 68 starts....9th is now our Captain.
April '13 Minnesota (playoff team) traded a 1st for Pominville. Been a mediocre club ever since.
June '12 Carolina (82 points) trades a 1st plus for Jordan Staal. Didn't make the playoffs for 6 more years.
July 11' Colorado (68 points) moved a 1st for Varlamov. Didn't pay off one ioata.
July '11 CBJ (73 points) moves a 1st plus plus for Jeff Carter. Didn't pay and was flipped for a dreadful package later that season.
Sept '09. Leafs (81 points) trade two 1sts for Kessel....OUCH!!!!
Feb '08 CBJ (73 points) moves a 1st for Adam Foote. Flop!!!!
June '07 Florida (86 points..non playoff) moves a 1st for Vokoun. Flop!!
June '07 Philly (56 points) moves a 1st for Timmonen and Hartnell. This is the only one that looks decent IMO.
I don't think it really worked out well for most of these....it's an incredibly risky proposition.
A bunch of those trades were on draft day with the pick locked in (like Schneider-Horvat, although that still bombed for NJ) which isn't the same thing as trading unknown future picks.
Toronto also traded Pittburgh's #1 pick in the Andersen deal, not their own, and LA wasn't really a traditional non-playoff team when they made the Lucic trade (which still didn't work out).
But yeah, it basically never works out.
So you have inside info? From everything I have read or heard, TB didn't even make him available. They had just gotten the news Callahan was LTIR and were not desperate at all to move JT. Look around and see what a deferred 1st with lottery protection gets you. JT is in his prime, locked up longterm and has been good since the preseason. Sometimes you can play hardball, but at the draft is not one of them, with how much is going on if you target a player that you think will help put a team over the top, you pull the trigger. Not saying you're one, but even the biggest Benning haters and people who hated this trade, have to admit that so far its worked out well.
Bonham
Registered User
Put the team over the top in what way? It is still highly questionable whether they will make the playoffs in the next two seasons and they are certainly miles from contending.
I did not see many posters question Miller the player, it is just not the type of trade the Canuck's should be making at this point in time. They have pretty much been the worst team in the league over the last four seasons. Until there is significant on-ice improvement, why risk a trade like this? If the price is too high, then walk away -- simple.
The entire league knew the Lightning would be under pressure to clear cap space.
Hate to poke holes in your post but this team is in a great position with the cap and the expansion draft. Sure we're a cap team. We also have a ton of cap coming off the books right around the time when we're going to need it the most. All that cap coming off will be for the most part replaced by elcs and players from the system. Throw in the new TV deal and its even better. Having guys like Podz, Hoglander, Madden, Woo Rathbone, OJ replacing the vets, will allow whoever to lock up the core and add pieces as they see fit. Who cares about the cap this season. Everyone's locked up for now and we're not going to have to trade picks to unload anyone, not will we lose anyone from the core to Seattle.
Fair enough, but I think JT is young and good enough that its worth the risk especially in 2021 draft that many think is the worst draft in recent memory. I still think the pick won't be a lottery pick and very few late 1sts will be as good as JT. As much fans lets hope that for once we get the best of a deal.
J.D Burke on 1040 saying that it's 'inevitable' Miller ends up as the third line center, particularly if Green wants to roll three legitimate scoring lines. Not sure what this would mean to Gaudette-Sutter long-term.....but still a good chance the latter is traded by the deadline imo.
And if either Baertschi or Goldy lights it up in the AHL, then one of them could return as a top-six winger to replace Miller.
And if either Baertschi or Goldy lights it up in the AHL, then one of them could return as a top-six winger to replace Miller.
Oliewud
Registered User
- May 13, 2013
- 2,896
- 2,350
Lol what? None of this makes sense. Miller will not be playing outside of the top 6.
To answer the title to the thread, we have a good player in J.T. Miller, but the trade to acquire him is a bad trade for the Canucks and that doesn’t depend on whether the Lightning get a lottery pick out of it. It’s just bad planning unless the Canucks trade Miller before his contract expires and get back, as a minimum, approximately what they paid for him.
It doesn't matter if Miller's market value was a 1st round pick and a 3rd pick. That value should have been set by a team which was closer to contending for a championship than the Canucks were.
The Canucks should not have been the team setting the market value for Miller. It's like asking an old man who can't see well enough to drive to pay $28,000 for a new car that is worth $30,000 new. Even paying less than market value for a new car that car isn't worth $28,000 to him unless he can sell it for that amount.
A few things to note:
1. The pick that the Lightning get may or may not be a lottery pick, but though it is still early it appears quite likely that the Canucks will do better with him than they would have done without him. If the Canucks make the playoffs this season and give the Lightning the 16th overall pick, that doesn’t mean the Canucks lost out on the 16th overall pick. The Canucks will have lost out on the lottery pick they would have had if they had not acquired Miller. That might have been a high pick.
In fact, given that in the past six seasons they’ve finished 6th last, 23rd last, 3rd last, 2nd last, 6th last and 9th last, respectively, recent history suggests the likelihood of a high pick would have been pretty high.
2. The Canucks also gave up a 3rd round pick.
3. As people love to point out, draft picks don’t usually work out-though high first round picks turn out to be NHL players most of the time they aren't certainties and the chances drop as the picks get lower.
Otoh, the draft is a teams chance to acquire cheap, cost-controlled players, to get players they have the option of keeping for most of a decade without another team having the right to take him away, the chance to build loyalty so a player may want to stay with the team and in particular the chance to get at least a portion of the players’ best years without paying him his full value.
That is a considerably amount to give up. Let’s look at it this way.
This season Quinn Hughes will make make between $925,000 and $1,775,000. It doesn’t matter whether he wins the Calder, becomes an all-star or breaks long-standing NHL records, he won’t make as much as Jordie Benn.
That will also be the case next season. It would have been the case the following season, as well, if the Canucks hadn’t chosen to burn a year off his entry level contract. (Surely there’s nobody crazy enough to think that Hughes would have chosen to forego three years of income, some of which he’d never get back, by staying in school until 2022.)
So say the choice is a chance at the next Quinn Hughes, or, to look at the 2015 draft, McDavid, Eichel, Marner, Hanifan, Provorov, Werenski, Rantanen, Barzal, Connor or Chabot, with three potential years of high level play at entry-level pay followed by several more years where you have the right to keep the player, or four years of J.T. Miller @ $5.25 million per season.
Trading the picks hurts the future as you have the right to keep the young players you pick until they’re 27 years old or 7 year veterans (and may keep them longer-look for example at the Sedins.)
It hurts against the cap. You are getting young players cheaply, even if they are really good. Cap space matters-it is the ability to pay your own players enough to keep them, and the ability to sign the missing pieces to make your team a really good team as well as, in some cases, the ability to make trades to acquire players other teams can’t afford to keep.
Against what the Canucks gave up for the future in trading for Miller, both asset-wise and cap-wise, the Canucks have a better chance to make the playoffs.
Starting with a bad team if this is how you build your team you might, if the players you acquire are good enough, get to be a pretty good team, though starting with a lot of cap deadwood and a poor roster makes that unlikely. It is far more likely that you’ll rise a little in the standings, maybe make the playoffs once or twice but by the time Miller is done, it will be hard for for the Canucks to be much more than a marginal playoff team. For that rise from mediocre to potentially decent, maybe getting into the playoffs, imo it isn’t worth the risk of making the future worse, potentially contributing in a negative way to the Canucks being mediocre for years to come.
Last edited:
The context of the trade is very important. As it is with all trades.
A 1st round pick at the deadline is worth significantly, significantly less than a 1st round pick two years out traded *at the draft*.
Trading a 1st at the deadline when you have 90% assurance that it will be 20th-30th overall will in some years net you Steve Ott. Is JT Miller better than that? Absolutely. Could this pick end up being that? Absolutely.
The proportionate risk that this is not that is too high, even if the risk isn't all that high.
Miller would need to be a regular 70 point player IMO to mitigate the catastrophic loss scenario here (a lottery pick that ends up being the 2021 1st overall). There's no doubt that he's a good player, but this wasn't a great trade. The most likely outcome is that it is inconsequential, but it would be awful if we gave up a shot at another Elias Pettersson or Quinn Hughes level player to add to the core for a player that will in 2021 be 28 years old.
That said, we obviously shouldn't solely assess this trade on the likelihood or possibility of the catastrophic outcome. Nobody claims that we fleeced the Rangers on the Raphael Diaz trade because it turned into Adam Gaudette. But that is a very real illustration of the downside risk of trading picks, and teams/fans assessing these trades should be very cognizant of that.
A 1st round pick at the deadline is worth significantly, significantly less than a 1st round pick two years out traded *at the draft*.
Trading a 1st at the deadline when you have 90% assurance that it will be 20th-30th overall will in some years net you Steve Ott. Is JT Miller better than that? Absolutely. Could this pick end up being that? Absolutely.
The proportionate risk that this is not that is too high, even if the risk isn't all that high.
Miller would need to be a regular 70 point player IMO to mitigate the catastrophic loss scenario here (a lottery pick that ends up being the 2021 1st overall). There's no doubt that he's a good player, but this wasn't a great trade. The most likely outcome is that it is inconsequential, but it would be awful if we gave up a shot at another Elias Pettersson or Quinn Hughes level player to add to the core for a player that will in 2021 be 28 years old.
That said, we obviously shouldn't solely assess this trade on the likelihood or possibility of the catastrophic outcome. Nobody claims that we fleeced the Rangers on the Raphael Diaz trade because it turned into Adam Gaudette. But that is a very real illustration of the downside risk of trading picks, and teams/fans assessing these trades should be very cognizant of that.
I really wanted him to play with Horvat.. We're a one line team now. Good luck winning on the road like that.
Numba9
Registered User
It's more likely that you end up with a Bennett type player than one of those you listed. So Tampa Bay is taking a chance here, they are more than likely giving up a very good player on a good contract for nothing.
Bojack Horvatman
IAMGROOT
- Jun 15, 2016
- 4,747
- 8,983
Numba9
Registered User
It's truly hilarious seeing the contradictions about the Miller deal. Certain posters condemn the Miller deal because Canucks will be giving up a mid first pick (the most likely scenario even without Miller) that may turn into a Rantanen or Chabot level player, then a second later they condemn the Miller trade because it will make the Canucks into a middling team that always picks in the middle of the first round thus never getting any better. 
...The bias and agendas are strong here.lol
...The bias and agendas are strong here.lol
Last edited:
It's truly hilarious seeing the contradictions about the Miller deal. Certain posters condemn the Miller deal because Canucks will be giving up a mid first pick (the most likely scenario even without Miller) that may turn into a Rantanen or Chabot level player, then a second later they condemn the Miller trade because it will make the Canucks into a middling team that always picks in the middle of the first round thus never getting any better.
They’re zealots.
Gaunce4gm
Trusted Hockey Man
Right? Let’s take the best left winger we’ve had since Daniel Sedin in 2015/16 and make him our 3rd line centre instead of giving Adam Gaudette an opportunity to succeed with legitimate line mates and icetime. Sounds good!
Hmm... maybe take out one significantly? I don't disagree with the above, but not for your reasons. There is often a premium paid to acquire players at the deadline and draft picks are often the currency. Last year, Hayes was traded for what turned out to be the 20th pick.
At the draft, draft picks are only worth a premium if they are picks from that year's drafts. Future years' drafts don't hold additional value at the time of the draft and have less value the further years away it is.
Huh? If the risk isn't all that high, why would the proportionate risk be too high? The risk of the Canucks missing the playoffs for 2 straight years with Miller should objectively be lower than without Miller. It doesn't seem like you consider the odds of the Canucks drafting 16-18 either in 2020 or 2021.
Jeff Bezos is of the opinion that one day Amazon would fail and go bankrupt. Does that mean that if someone offered to sell his/her Amazon shares to you at half the market value with the condition that you can't sell it in the next two years that you wouldn't buy it because of your perceived proportionate risk (of Amazon going bankrupt) is too high? When analyzing risk, you have to analyze the risk of ruin or in other words the risk and odds of the "catastrophic loss" scenario happening. Your next comment suggests that you understand this but somehow your points above doesn't reflect this.
Agreed and what is the value of having a player who is locked into a good contract with no trade protections? I brought this up when the Blues were near the bottom of the standings and we were discussing the possibilities of poaching some of their players. During those discussions, I mentioned the value of acquiring Tarasenko who is locked in at $7.5M AAV. You're not getting that player as a UFA at $7.5M AAV without trade protection, yet you would have needed to trade significant assets in order to acquire him.
Personally, if the Canucks miss the playoffs the next two years and that 2021 pick ends up being 1st overall that's just the type of luck the Canucks have had in their franchise history.
NuxFan09
Registered User
This board has a sickness, seriously. Like, I get there genuinely is a lot to be frustrated about. However, people just seem addicted to taking every single topic and finding an angle with which to whine about it.It's truly hilarious seeing the contradictions about the Miller deal. Certain posters condemn the Miller deal because Canucks will be giving up a mid first pick (the most likely scenario even without Miller) that may turn into a Rantanen or Chabot level player, then a second later they condemn the Miller trade because it will make the Canucks into a middling team that always picks in the middle of the first round thus never getting any better.
I appreciate those in this thread discussing J.T. Miller, especially when he's been a damn good acquisition so far. Not so much the whining about trading the 1st round pick. I'm not saying that not being a fan of trading a 1st when you're not a playoff team isn't a valid opinion. Not at all. Just saying that you can only write so many essays on it. The pick is gone, we have the player, and said player is playing well. For better or worse, discuss that, or at least take the whining about management to the management thread.
TraderJim
Um.. like.. you know
- Apr 18, 2006
- 1,155
- 1,564
Some people think it's being contrarian to post in a place that the majority don't agree with his/her opinion. Some think there's freedom of speech and they can post wherever they want. I think the former is stupid and I support the latter.
- Status
Latest posts
-
News Article: Quebec City, Andlauer and the Sparticat Fiasco- Latest: RedWhiteBlackGold
-
Should the Canucks tear it all the way down to the foundations?
- Latest: centipede2233
-
Speculation: Another year of this Bluc **** (The 2024-25 season thread)- Latest: Peter James Bond III
