[EXTENDED] JT Miller 7x$8

[TrailerParkFlyers]

It's weird they didn't do 8yrs. He's 29 yrs old, so is there really a difference between 36 and 37yrs old? You could argue 8m is underpaid, but I too wonder how much this moves the needle for canucks on winning the cup vs a trade that would net a big prospect return. The prospects might not pan out, but if extending Miller doesn't move the needle, would you not try and move the needle in another way?

But some teams need to prioritize winning games over winning cups for financial reasons and ownerships wishes.

He has one year remaining on his current contract so in a way it is an 8 year commitment

[Leancats]

As a local, here is an unfiltered message I sent to my brother (also a local) today after we went back and forth on what we thought about the trade:

There’s been a lot of talk from Vancouver outlets that this was a terrible trade and the people wanted the rebuild package of player prospect pick for him. I’m sitting here thinking this guy is going to be good for at least five of those seven years. Why the heck would you want to trade someone of his caliber for an upgrade on defence and futures?? The GM was either going to trade him for someone almost as good but younger or sign him. It makes zero sense to me that a competitive team would trade him for futures. Apparently the best deal on the table was from NYR of Chytil Lundqvist and a first which Vancouver needs none of those players - emphasis on needs. They need better defensive defencemen and a character/productive bottom six. Trading Miller isn’t going to get you that. Better drafting/trading/get rid of Benning contracts to have cap to sign quality guys is the only way to get that done.

[jdreed3184]

I don't watch much Canucks hockey and I don't live there so maybe I'm missing something. But I don't understand the reason to move towards a rebuild strategy. Seems like there are decent pieces in place to compete at a high level very soon, no?

Miller // Pettersson // Boeser // Horvat // Garland // Mikheyev (with Hoglander, Podkolzin progressing, albeit slowly)
Hughes (and Rathbone on the way)
Demko

They definitely need a couple bottom six pieces and become more efficient on defense, no doubt. But it just seems like a rebuild would waste a decent top-6 plus, a clear #1D, and a helluva goalie.

From my perspective, the Miller signing seems good as long as they address their bottom 6 and defense over the next 1-2 years. But like I said, I might be missing something or over-valuing their offense?

[ross10019]

I don't watch much Canucks hockey and I don't live there so maybe I'm missing something. But I don't understand the reason to move towards a rebuild strategy. Seems like there are decent pieces in place to compete at a high level very soon, no?

Miller // Pettersson // Boeser // Horvat // Garland // Mikheyev (with Hoglander, Podkolzin progressing, albeit slowly)
Hughes (and Rathbone on the way)
Demko

They definitely need a couple bottom six pieces and become more efficient on defense, no doubt. But it just seems like a rebuild would waste a decent top-6 plus, a clear #1D, and a helluva goalie.

From my perspective, the Miller signing seems good as long as they address their bottom 6 and defense over the next 1-2 years. But like I said, I might be missing something or over-valuing their offense?

Problem is you’ve got Schenn miscast as a first pair D next to Hughes, two somewhat albatross contracts in Myers and OEL, and they’re going to be in a world of cap hurt once Pettersson’s deal is up.

[tweetdrivr]

Any team that has employed Jordie Benn within the last few years has roster issues.

[hawkdog]

Its good deal IMO, nice to see them keep their highest scoring player and skip the drama Calgary went through.
Hopefully the nucks can continue their play that saw them play at a 107 point pace under Boudreau.

[TrailerParkFlyers]

As a local, here is an unfiltered message I sent to my brother (also a local) today after we went back and forth on what we thought about the trade:

There’s been a lot of talk from Vancouver outlets that this was a terrible trade and the people wanted the rebuild package of player prospect pick for him. I’m sitting here thinking this guy is going to be good for at least five of those seven years. Why the heck would you want to trade someone of his caliber for an upgrade on defence and futures?? The GM was either going to trade him for someone almost as good but younger or sign him. It makes zero sense to me that a competitive team would trade him for futures. Apparently the best deal on the table was from NYR of Chytil Lundqvist and a first which Vancouver needs none of those players - emphasis on needs. They need better defensive defencemen and a character/productive bottom six. Trading Miller isn’t going to get you that. Better drafting/trading/get rid of Benning contracts to have cap to sign quality guys is the only way to get that done.

Well said

[tweetdrivr]

Teams with NHL defenseman better than most of what Vancouver has who would love to have Miller:
Carolina
Buffalo
Pittsburgh
New Jersey
Calgary
Colorado
Arizona
Columbus
Chicago
Anaheim
Los Angeles
Rangers
Ottawa
Vegas
Winnipeg

[Daydream Nation]

I hope they trade Horvat now. Horvat as a #3C is a luxury this team cannot afford.

[hawkdog]

Teams with NHL defenseman better than most of what Vancouver has who would love to have Miller:
Carolina
Buffalo
Pittsburgh
New Jersey
Calgary
Colorado
Arizona
Columbus
Chicago
Anaheim
Los Angeles
Rangers
Ottawa
Vegas
Winnipeg

Is there a team that wouldn't love to have Miller on their team? He was the 4th highest scoring center after CM, AM and SS.

[tweetdrivr]

Correct. My point being that Vancouver could have made themselves much better in the near term (not futures and draft picks) by trading him vs. signing him. It’s not terrible, but it’s poor asset management.

[Daydream Nation]

Correct. My point being that Vancouver could have made themselves much better in the near term (not futures and draft picks) by trading him vs. signing him. It’s not terrible, but it’s poor asset management.

The market was so poor for forwards which is why they just resigned him. Look at the return for Debrincat, MaxPax, and Bjorskstrand. All had underwhelming returns. If they could have traded Garland or Boeser for a fair return, they would have. Overall, it's a fair contract. The last couple years might be rough.

[Canucks_fan18]

Fair deal. Again I wouldn't of traded him for potential and picks. We needed a legit top 2 D or it wasn't worth it. I feel the Canucks have top ten center depth in the league. Also we have young guns who all haven't fully matured in Hughes, Demko, Petterson, Boeser and Polds.

[ross10019]

The market was so poor for forwards which is why they just resigned him. Look at the return for Debrincat, MaxPax, and Bjorskstrand. All had underwhelming returns. If they could have traded Garland or Boeser for a fair return, they would have. Overall, it's a fair contract. The last couple years might be rough.

That market was this summer, and you are correct, but the market for forwards at the trade deadline was very different. They should have pulled the trigger then.

[Daydream Nation]

That market was this summer, and you are correct, but the market for forwards at the trade deadline was very different. They should have pulled the trigger then.

True, but that's always difficult when the team is in a playoff push. Yes, I know the odds weren't good but that would have been a tough sell for that fickle Vancouver fan base.