Should the Rangers Consider Trading K'Andre Miller?

[Flynn]

To the OP…

 

While I’m a firm believer that no player is untouchable if the package is right.. Miller is the 1st of the “young guys” I lock up to term. 

[Phil]

No player is untouchable, but the problem with Miller is you're taking a tremendous risk by trading him. Much larger than paying him, given how productive he's been in spite of the lack of PP time.

 

I get that the Rangers lack centers, but they don't actually lack top-six centers right now. If you cut out Chytil tomorrow, you can probably backfill his role with a player like Barbashev at an affordable rate as a stop gap. If you cut out Miller... I have no idea how the hell you recoup that loss. Especially on the open market.

 

If he was getting moved for, say, Chychrun, you might have been able to convince me. I just don't really see a viable path/name here to get me on board with the idea.

[NYR2711]

No way am I moving Miller. He still has plenty of growth in him. The kid is 23, started playing in the NHL at 20, and he is playing well for a kid that stepped in that early in his career. He has 64 points for a guy that doesn't play the PP at all. Yes he takes some bad penalties, but again, his play outshines that. He is a plus 34 for his career. You don't give up on a kid like this that is this young and still hasn't come close to his prime yet. 

[Ozzy]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

No player is untouchable, but the problem with Miller is you're taking a tremendous risk by trading him. Much larger than paying him, given how productive he's been in spite of the lack of PP time.

 

I get that the Rangers lack centers, but they don't actually lack top-six centers right now. If you cut out Chytil tomorrow, you can probably backfill his role with a player like Barbashev at an affordable rate as a stop gap. If you cut out Miller... I have no idea how the hell you recoup that loss. Especially on the open market.

 

If he was getting moved for, say, Chychrun, you might have been able to convince me. I just don't really see a viable path/name here to get me on board with the idea.

 

I like that kid in Montreal, Arber Xhekaj ...but he's not much offensively.  Defensively he's seems beastly.

 

I think K' will never be a fierce or rough player, but he will be better defensively in time.  His offensive ability is very high for a young defenseman though.  He kinda reminds me of a young Phil Housely.

[Phil]

24 minutes ago, NYR2711 said:

No way am I moving Miller. He still has plenty of growth in him. The kid is 23, started playing in the NHL at 20, and he is playing well for a kid that stepped in that early in his career. He has 64 points for a guy that doesn't play the PP at all. Yes he takes some bad penalties, but again, his play outshines that. He is a plus 34 for his career. You don't give up on a kid like this that is this young and still hasn't come close to his prime yet. 

 

No for something that isn't a guarantee. I mentioned Chychrun. I'd have been willing to have a conversation there, but I just don't see a viable name/option to even entertain the idea right now.

[NYR2711]

5 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

No for something that isn't a guarantee. I mentioned Chychrun. I'd have been willing to have a conversation there, but I just don't see a viable name/option to even entertain the idea right now.

I agree, like you said no one is untouchable, but at this point, there isn't anyone who interests me for him. If they can sign him to a good deal, we will have 5 good defensemen with them needing only a steady number 6 defenseman. I like our defense, and when healthy, I would even argue that they are amongst the top defense unit in the league, all 3 pairings being steady and reliable.

[The Dude]

7 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

I don’t follow the Schneider/Miller overlap either and I’ve seen it a few times now. Schneider is the heir apparent to Trouba, and he’ll be cheap pretty much until Trouba’s contract ends. He’s not switching sides so it’s moot.

I figured he'd be up for a much better contract before that. A year apart from when Miller is due his. They don't play the same side, but they are getting paid a year apart. If you pay Miller mote than a bridge, can they afford 3 or so million for Schneiders 2nd contract the year after, 

 

Their raises coincide. Not where they play. If it comes to a cap crunch  (maybe it won't, but if it does), I'd rather keep Schneider for the future over Miller. 

 

With the kid line all likely staying and getting big raises, the possibility of keeping one of 10 and 91 AND a raise for Miller, it may be an issue of can't keep em all. 

 

Maybe I'm vastly over rating Schneider though. I think he's the bees knees and needs a partner that isn't complete garbage. We seem to agree that he's the guy that should replace Trouba, when that time comes. Can they keep him that long though? 

[The Dude]

10 hours ago, Pete said:

It's his 3rd season and he is what he is? Not at all, especially for a defenseman. 

 

Schneider's defensive metrics are awful. Much worse than Miller's, and for all the criticism Miller gets his metrics are very good. 

 

Schneider plays right and Miller left so it's not a conversation. 

 

Correction.

 

For a soft defenseman.

 

You can't teach attitude and grit. This is him. He's never been physical. I don't see that changing.  Positioning? Sure. Maybe that can be worked on.  But he's never going to have snarl or use the body. 

 

As for Schneider.  Look who he's played with.  Of course his metrics are going to be bad. 

 

I'm not suggesting Schneider play the left side (then again why not?), I'm suggesting which one you ultimately want to keep  down the road. Maybe I'm overestimating what his next deal will be. Maybe he's easy to bridge. Or maybe you better lock him up fast and cheap (like Joshs mom), because I think he's a better all around player. Someone has to replace Trouba one day. I think he's the guy. 

 

Can they pay Miller a Skjei like deal, then be able to afford Schneider down the road? All with the kid line getting paid  and the dream of keeping 10 or 91 for a couple seasons? 

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Correction.

 

For a soft defenseman.

 

You can't teach attitude and grit. This is him. He's never been physical. I don't see that changing.  Positioning? Sure. Maybe that can be worked on.  But he's never going to have snarl or use the body. 

 

As for Schneider.  Look who he's played with.  Of course his metrics are going to be bad. 

 

I'm not suggesting Schneider play the left side (then again why not?), I'm suggesting which one you ultimately want to keep  down the road. Maybe I'm overestimating what his next deal will be. Maybe he's easy to bridge. Or maybe you better lock him up fast and cheap (like Joshs mom), because I think he's a better all around player. Someone has to replace Trouba one day. I think he's the guy. 

 

Can they pay Miller a Skjei like deal, then be able to afford Schneider down the road? All with the kid line getting paid  and the dream of keeping 10 or 91 for a couple seasons? 

 

He doesn't necessarily need those attributes. There's nothing wrong with being Jay Bouwmeester.

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Correction.

 

For a soft defenseman.

 

You can't teach attitude and grit. This is him. He's never been physical. I don't see that changing.  Positioning? Sure. Maybe that can be worked on.  But he's never going to have snarl or use the body.

This isn't a requirement for a defensman. I don't know why everyone thinks it is. They see a tall guy and they want him to truck. He doesn't need to. It's a "nice to have".

 

Quote

As for Schneider.  Look who he's played with.  Of course his metrics are going to be bad.

Miller plays with Trouba...That's no prize. They should have tried him with Fox while Lindgren was injured.

 

Quote

 I'm not suggesting Schneider play the left side (then again why not?), I'm suggesting which one you ultimately want to keep  down the road. Maybe I'm overestimating what his next deal will be. Maybe he's easy to bridge. Or maybe you better lock him up fast and cheap (like Joshs mom), because I think he's a better all around player. Someone has to replace Trouba one day. I think he's the guy. 

 

Can they pay Miller a Skjei like deal, then be able to afford Schneider down the road? All with the kid line getting paid  and the dream of keeping 10 or 91 for a couple seasons? 

They don't need to play the entire kid line, and going back to the genesis of this thread, I'd rather keep Miller and move Chytil, if you have to choose.

 

Schneider's 2nd deal isn't going to be much. That's why I'm saying it's not a choice between Miller and Schneider.

[The Dude]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

He doesn't necessarily need those attributes. There's nothing wrong with being Jay Bouwmeester.

Do you need Bouwmeester when you have Fox though? IDK.  The reason we are talking about trading Miller is due to these lacking attributes.  He doesn't need them. The team does. 

 

Trouba carries the blame for the pairing looking like shit. Buuuttt, Miller certainly has big lapses and the lack of the attributes we speak about may be hindering Trouba. Trouba has been paired with Miller for most of his tenure. Did Trouba look lost in Miller's absence? Or slightly better?  I dunno man.  Wasn't as bad at all. 

 

Do you NEED his production?  I'm undecided. I'd love to keep him. He's got great skating and a knack for carrying the puck. He still hasn't even reached his offensive potential. He could improve defensively too. He's a possible foundational player. BUT. They already have that type of player in Fox. Is it a must to have both at the cost of a young cost controlled forward? 

 

It's tough, but I don’t think it's as matter of factly as some are saying.  I agree that the return would have to be astronomical. 

[Phil]

Not to mention they literally play opposite sides of the ice (Schneider and Miller).

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Do you need Bouwmeester when you have Fox though? IDK.  The reason we are talking about trading Miller is due to these lacking attributes.  He doesn't need them. The team does.

 

Um, yes? Did the Flames need Bouwmeester when they had Mark Giordano? Did the Blues need him when they had Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk? The idea you can only have one of something good is just inherently wrong.

 

Quote

Trouba carries the blame for the pairing looking like shit. Buuuttt, Miller certainly has big lapses and the lack of the attributes we speak about may be hindering Trouba. Trouba has been paired with Miller for most of his tenure. Did Trouba look lost in Miller's absence? Or slightly better?  I dunno man.  Wasn't as bad at all.

 

Miller has absolutely brutal moments defending, but so does this whole team. If I'm the Rangers, I want to see what he can do when he's actually coached. A real coach. Not a cheerleader. Someone who understands tactics and concepts like sound positioning.

 

Quote

Do you NEED his production?  I'm undecided. I'd love to keep him. He's got great skating and a knack for carrying the puck. He still hasn't even reached his offensive potential. He could improve defensively too. He's a possible foundational player. BUT. They already have that type of player in Fox. Is it a must to have both at the cost of a young cost controlled forward? 

 

It's tough, but I don’t think it's as matter of factly as some are saying.  I agree that the return would have to be astronomical. 

 

Again, the idea that you can have only one of a similar thing is inherently flawed thinking. Where are you replacing his production? I promise you, the idea it's going to magically manifest itself in the aggregate (multiple players), or in a guy who's blocked behind Fox and Trouba (Schneider) is a supremely risky strategy.

 

I don't know that the Rangers even have to make this Sophie's Choice (Chytil or Miller). It's an entirely hypothetical conversation we're having, but operating under the assumption that it's real, I'd favor Miller for reasons I mentioned earlier. Namely the fact that they can very likely back fill Chytil's role and get the same production as a stop gap (say Ivan Barbashev as a free agent). The same cannot be said of losing Miller unless you are/were dealing him for a known commodity. I need actual names here to even weigh the idea, because on its face, the idea of just trading this guy so you don't have to pay him is dumb. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[The Dude]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

Not to mention they literally play opposite sides of the ice (Schneider and Miller).

Haven't been saying Schneider would replace Miller on the left. I'm saying I think it's going to come down to picking which one to keep. Doesn't matter which side they play. If you can only keep one or the other is what I'm saying.  

[Phil]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Haven't been saying Schneider would replace Miller on the left. I'm saying I think it's going to come down to picking which one to keep. Doesn't matter which side they play. If you can only keep one or the other is what I'm saying.  

 

It very much does though, because Schneider plays so far down the lineup he's statistically unlikely to produce in a manner that forces the Rangers to pay him very well. He's playing at a 25-point pace over 82 games.

 

Miller doesn't. He's a top-four staple and is putting up 40~ points with minimal PP time.

[The Dude]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Um, yes? Did the Flames need Bouwmeester when they had Mark Giordano? Did the Blues need him when they had Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk? The idea you can only have one of something good is just inherently wrong.

 

 

Miller has absolutely brutal moments defending, but so does this whole team. If I'm the Rangers, I want to see what he can do when he's actually coached. A real coach. Not a cheerleader. Someone who understands tactics and concepts like sound positioning.

 

 

Again, the idea that you can have only one of a similar thing is inherently flawed thinking. Where are you replacing his production? I promise you, the idea it's going to magically manifest itself in the aggregate (multiple players), or in a guy who's blocked behind Fox and Trouba (Schneider) is a supremely risky strategy.

 

I don't know that the Rangers even have to make this Sophie's Choice (Chytil or Miller). It's an entirely hypothetical conversation we're having, but operating under the assumption that it's real, I'd favor Miller for reasons I mentioned earlier. Namely the fact that they can very likely back fill Chytil's role and get the same production as a stop gap (say Ivan Barbashev as a free agent). The same cannot be said of losing Miller unless you are/were dealing him for a known commodity. I need actual names here to even weigh the idea, because on its face, the idea of just trading this guy so you don't have to pay him is dumb. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

What'd the Flames win again? 

The Blues won one cup and Bouwmeester was a shell of his former self. He had 17 points that year and added 7 helpers in the playoffs.  Let's not act like the guy wasn't on his last leg or wasn't just a depth player at the time.

 

If you have a balanced team. Sure, having a tandem of skill D men can win. This team is skill heavy at forward and need to balance that out with more solid D men.  That skill heavy forward group can make up for that production. Especially if they can get 10 or 91 to resign on a team friendly deal. 

 

I'm not even saying Miller can't improve defensively. IMO, he could really be a well rounded player despite his lack of physical play. His skating ability alone, makes that very possible. 

 

As you said, I'm not even sure if this decision has to be made. But, I fear overpaying Miller now could cost the team down the road. 

 

The question is, what's considered an overpayment? I think I'm comfortable with 5X5. It's kind of the sweet spot. It makes him both somewhat affordable and if need be tradeable. 

 

 

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

The same cannot be said of losing Miller unless you are/were dealing him for a known commodity. I need actual names here to even weigh the idea, because on its face, the idea of just trading this guy so you don't have to pay him is dumb. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Names depends on what kind of contract you think Miller gets. The idea is to save cap, improve defense (UFA or cheaper trade), and accrue significant assets in return. When I say improve defense, I mean in the DZ. The team would be foregoing about 20 (or more) offensive points in production out of that position. And the replacement is cheaper because points are generally king when it comes to contract dollars.

[Phil]

37 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Names depends on what kind of contract you think Miller gets. The idea is to save cap, improve defense (UFA or cheaper trade), and accrue significant assets in return. When I say improve defense, I mean in the DZ. The team would be foregoing about 20 (or more) offensive points in production out of that position. And the replacement is cheaper because points are generally king when it comes to contract dollars.

 

That's not how this should work. The burden of proof is always with the party making the claim, or in this case the suggestion to trade him, but probably 4.5x8?

 

24yo Mikey Anderson signed 4.125x8.

23yo Mattias Samuelsson signed 4.29x7.

23yo Filip Hronek signed 4.4x3.

22yo Noah Dobson signed 4.0x3.

[Phil]

57 minutes ago, The Dude said:

What'd the Flames win again? 

The Blues won one cup and Bouwmeester was a shell of his former self. He had 17 points that year and added 7 helpers in the playoffs.  Let's not act like the guy wasn't on his last leg or wasn't just a depth player at the time.

 

If you have a balanced team. Sure, having a tandem of skill D men can win. This team is skill heavy at forward and need to balance that out with more solid D men.  That skill heavy forward group can make up for that production. Especially if they can get 10 or 91 to resign on a team friendly deal. 

 

I'm not even saying Miller can't improve defensively. IMO, he could really be a well rounded player despite his lack of physical play. His skating ability alone, makes that very possible. 

 

As you said, I'm not even sure if this decision has to be made. But, I fear overpaying Miller now could cost the team down the road. 

 

The question is, what's considered an overpayment? I think I'm comfortable with 5X5. It's kind of the sweet spot. It makes him both somewhat affordable and if need be tradeable. 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, if your barometer for paying anyone what their worth is whether they've won a Cup or not, the league GMs are operating well in the red ever spending a cent on anyone who hasn't.

[BrooksBurner]

20 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

That's not how this should work. The burden of proof is always with the party making the claim, or in this case the suggestion to trade him, but probably 4.5x8?

 

24yo Mikey Anderson signed 4.125x8.

23yo Mattias Samuelsson signed 4.29x7.

23yo Filip Hronek signed 4.4x3.

22yo Noah Dobson signed 4.0x3.

 

The problem with me both assigning a cap value and looking up names at the same time is if we don't agree on what his cap hit might be, then there is really nothing to discuss because that's the basis of the whole conversation. I'm not trading him if he signs $4.5M x 8. I'd have him sign it yesterday, then give Lindgren a matching offer. I can live with the top 4 D combined making $26M total long term. As @The Dudealluded to earlier, that kind of contract for Miller will be tradeable in a year or two if you don't like where his game has headed.

 

Right now I've got Miller around $4.5x2 bridge increasing with more years added. An 8 year deal in my guesstimation moves upwards of $6.5. Let's say a 5 year deal is $5.5. So I see a much higher cost to keep than you do. If my estimation is correct, does your stance change?

Edited March 16, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

This isn't a requirement for a defensman. I don't know why everyone thinks it is.

Well that's because it kinda is. I feel like many label Miller as a 2 way defender. I do. I'm assuming you do. The guy simply avoids contact. Nobody is expecting trucking people. But rubbing someone out upon entry would be something you expect from a 2 way guy. 

 

Now if you want to say Miller is strictly an offensive D man. Cool. Then that's why you think he doesn't need such attributes. Makes sense. He can be a passive weakling if that's his description. 

 

I question the surefire opinion that the Rangers need to commit to another weak defender who adds to the Ds already flimsy style of play. 

 

Buuuut. I guess the point should stand that he may put it all together with a proper coaching staff. 

[Arty]

K needs to beat the team bus with a sledgehammer

[The Dude]

19 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I mean, if your barometer for paying anyone what their worth is whether they've won a Cup or not, the league GMs are operating well in the red ever spending a cent on anyone who hasn't.

But you're using a tandem as some sort of recipe for success. You could have used much better examples.  Like winners. 

 

We can name quite a few teams that have used this recipe and failed miserably. SJ with Burns and Karlsson  pretty much marked the downfall of the franchises run as a contender. 

 

How DeAngelo and Provorov look? Just as good as Provorov, Sanheim and Yandle prior.?

 

Chychrun,  Ekman- Larson- Goligoski...

 

But I guess there are times it has worked recently. TB has a good unit. Colorado got crazy numbers out of Toews. LA had a good 1-2 punch for years. 

 

Anyway. There's a common theme going on with teams that had success doing a 2 legit offensive D men. The teams had a balanced group of forwards that played defense. As well as some physical presences on the blue line. 

 

That's something this current roster doesn't do. Im not even sure they could, if they got a new coach. This forward group is kinda one dimensional. 

 

[Long live the King]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

What'd the Flames win again? 

The Blues won one cup and Bouwmeester was a shell of his former self. He had 17 points that year and added 7 helpers in the playoffs.  Let's not act like the guy wasn't on his last leg or wasn't just a depth player at the time.

 

If you have a balanced team. Sure, having a tandem of skill D men can win. This team is skill heavy at forward and need to balance that out with more solid D men.  That skill heavy forward group can make up for that production. Especially if they can get 10 or 91 to resign on a team friendly deal. 

 

I'm not even saying Miller can't improve defensively. IMO, he could really be a well rounded player despite his lack of physical play. His skating ability alone, makes that very possible. 

 

As you said, I'm not even sure if this decision has to be made. But, I fear overpaying Miller now could cost the team down the road. 

 

The question is, what's considered an overpayment? I think I'm comfortable with 5X5. It's kind of the sweet spot. It makes him both somewhat affordable and if need be tradeable. 

 

 

 

 

 

He played over 23 minutes a night during the cup run, 3rd most on the team, with 69% DZ starts.  Seems like a little more than a role player.  6'4" 206, averaged barely over a hit per game in his career of over 1200 games.

 

Again comes down to coaching and system to aid Miller's positioning. 

[4EverRangerFrank]

You guys have changed my mind on Miller. Let’s see what some legit coaching can do for his game.