I think maybe you get 3 pieces back for Miller, not 4. Regardless of what the fan base says, anyone trading for Miller is giving up a VERY good prospect and a first round pick plus a lesser pick/prospect. Rutherford won’t make the deal unless he is getting quality back, it’s as simple as that. Not too familiar with the Flames kids, but Rossi, Lysell, Lundkvust/Schneider would definitely be THE components from those respective teams. Rangers are gonna make it happen IMO. Good job.

I agree with that, this is just an initial evaluation to begin negotiations with and if we get into a crazy bidding war I could see the return getting this high. As for the flames kids, Pelletier is a 2018 first-round pick who is PPG in the AHL currently so definitely equivalent to a first IMO

Those prospects are top of the line blue chippers. That's the definition given to prospects above, very good , they wouldn't be available. Those types of prospects are only moved for players on the same tier level as Eichel or Barkov. Franchise level players. Which Miller while very good, is not.

Miller's not bringing back a top prospect. He'll get a B-level prospect back at most.

I don’t believe that is remotely true. Miller is not a rental and gives two playoff appearances at an extremely favourable cap hit. With retention his value only increases. A late first and a B prospect are laughable returns in this case and it would be pointless to move him. Whatever the return, it will be significant or Rutherford waits and makes a deal later. In all likelihood we will get to see what his worth is….

Value would likely be inlcuded to offset and account for that. My point, specifically, was that he's not getting a top prospect like Rossi, Lysell, or Schneider back. There's a longshot outside chance at Lundkvust, given he's #2 in the depth chart behind Schneider. But the other 3 are definitely off the table.

From Minnesota specifically you're looking at one of Khusnutdinov (unlikely), O'Rourke or Hunt. That's the type of tier range of prospects a Miller trade will get back. The rest of the return depends on what else is included. If it's Fiala, then there'll be no prospect included, just a 2nd rounder. If it's Greenway, then one of the 3 I just mentioned and a 1st.

If you think Miller is going to bring back more than that, you're overvaluing him. Furthermore, retention doesn't increase value... unless you're acting as a third party and getting nothing else out of the deal, it's a courtesy to the other team to help them fit the player under cap.

Both JB and BB said this team needs more speed so Lysell to me would be the perfect fit in terms of team need. Makes sense for Boston too their window is really this year and next anyways.

JR*

You had me until this statement right here. Retaining salary on Miller may allow the Rangers to keep Strome and Kakko moving into next season which just adds to the lethality of their lineup. It is not simply a matter of convenience, we are offering to pay $2.625M of Miller's salary to play AGAINST us twice a season, and reduce our own ability to improve our roster and that should ABSOLUTELY add value for the Rangers and improve the return by a significant amount.

You are clearly undervaluing Miller. I agree Rossi is a legitimate top 10 blue chip NHL prospect, so no he's not coming back. The other three, don't be so sure. It will all depend on how badly the team that trades for him values having him. Minnesota is not a good fit any way you look at it. Rutherford has said he wants picks and prospects in trades he will make and I doubt he changes his tune. Fiala and Greenway don't fit that narrative or quite frankly the style of play they are trying to achieve. Minnesota's prospect list doesn't really match what Vancouver needs (RD,C) so I don't see it happening regardless. Same for Boston, no real fit and outside of Lysell, nothing significant to offer. Calgary has the pieces as does NYR and Florida and those are the contenders IMO. NYR not only have a lot of young RD prospects, but they are log jammed at the NHL level, so it's not hard to believe that they will not only consider moving one, but are counting on it. Depending on what you read Lundqvist and Schneider are very similarly rated, but obviously everyone loves Schneider's size. Considering that this will likely be Rutherford's first trade, he's not looking to bring back a handful of shiny glass beads IF he trades the best player on his team. As to retention, the notion that it wouldn't add value is ridiculous. So a third party that retains salary gets value, but if one of the primary teams retains salary it's meaningless and of no value? Give your head a shake, no one is giving anyone a 2.5 M dollar courtesy.

We will get to see one way or the other.....

In general, no it does not. What your talking about only makes sense if the player in question is traded to a division rival where the team would see that player on a regular basis. If Miller were traded to the Rangers, seeing Miller twice out of an 82 game schedule means absolutely nothing. Because they wouldn't see him at all for 80 games next year. You can't expect a team to pay extra when you're only retaining to help that player fit under the cap as a courtesy to them. The difference between the dead cap from retention of the roughly $2M on Miller is minimal at best. A depth player at worst. Both of which can be offset by signing a league minimum contract or utilizing a ELC. A shrewd GM wouldn't miss a beat, and could easily field a team inspite of it. Trying to get back more for a *courtesy* is asinine, it's not a courtesy at that point, it's blackmail.

Furthermore, it's different when you're the 3rd team involved, helping retain, and aren't getting the player being moved or another player as part of the transaction from either team. That's when a team will get compensated for their services and will get a pick for helping out. As a *courtesy*.

This is a cut throat league and in a cap world every dollar literally counts as evidenced by teams that are icing short handed lineups to accrue only thousands of dollars in cap space. 2.5 m in retention has significant value, over two years even more. Justify/minimize all you want, but you are quite wrong on this.

I don't think I am. And I certainly don't agree with you either. But whether I'm right or not, is immaterial. Just as whether you're right or not, is immaterial. End of the day, it's a difference of opinion.

Have a nice day.