A1LeafNation
Good, is simply not good enough!
- Oct 17, 2010
- 27,928
- 18,154
I didn't say that he didn't get it. I asked if you guys thought he was 90 point player moving forward. Simple yes or no that no one wants to answer and we know why.
Rumor: ALL PURPOSE JT MILLER THREAD PT2 - It's Been 84 Years....
- Thread starter Canucks LB
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Oct 13, 2018
- 4,989
- 6,258
In one of those seasons he was playing 3rd/4th line minutes with Tampa Bay, in the other it was a 56 game season, of which he played 53 games and got points in 89% of his games. It was the only season he didn't score over PPG in Vancouver. A pace of 72 points over an 82 game season.
He was full value for his 99 points last year and would have had more if he had some decent teammates for the whole season, since nobody else was playing well for large chunks of the year. This is player who for whatever reason doesn't get the name recognition he deserves. Say what you want, but last year he was absolutely one of the best players in the league, no qualifiers needed.
This is one of the most flawed yet prevalent opinions I've seen in this site lately.
The fact is he literally did score 99 points last season, ipso facto his value is currently that if a 99 point player. You can buy into whatever arbitrary total number of points you want for him going forward, his current value does not work that way.
Matthews will eventually have a season down the line where he puts up 50 points, therefore am I allowed to value him as such and make offers based on that?
I get the idea that the offer it would seemingly take is too rich for teams, it may or may not be, but that does not mean you accept some arbitrarily lower value unless there are other extenuating circumstances, and in this case...there are not.
How utterly embarrassing to use a 56 game season to try to claim an 82 game season baseline. Kudos on tanking any credibility to your argument.
Peter Griffin
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2003
- 35,771
- 8,697
Bondra slapshot
Registered User
- Jul 21, 2009
- 187
- 384
This is where the intentional ambiguity and conflating come into play by Canucks fans.
Obviously J.T. Miller got 99 points last season. So you can call him a 100 point player in the literal sense that he achieved such an accomplishment last season. However, does he do that again simply because he just did it last season? That's a different discussion and looking at the input from Canucks fans on their own board, many of them think he won't repeat his career high and thus, want to try to capitalize while he's at his greatest.
Most GMs don't seem to view him as a 100 point player in the sense that you can rely on him to replicate that, otherwise the interest should've been greater, both in terms of quantity of teams wanting him and in terms of quality when regarding what they'd pay.
He got 100 points last season, but many Canucks fans and apparently GMs don't see him as a player that, majority of the time, will be that kind of player. Especially moving forward.
Calling him a 100 point player is disingenuous if you're trying to advertise him as a guy who's likely to continue to be that guy. Otherwise, that accomplishment means nothing to teams who are only concerned with what he'll do for them in the future.
Obviously J.T. Miller got 99 points last season. So you can call him a 100 point player in the literal sense that he achieved such an accomplishment last season. However, does he do that again simply because he just did it last season? That's a different discussion and looking at the input from Canucks fans on their own board, many of them think he won't repeat his career high and thus, want to try to capitalize while he's at his greatest.
Most GMs don't seem to view him as a 100 point player in the sense that you can rely on him to replicate that, otherwise the interest should've been greater, both in terms of quantity of teams wanting him and in terms of quality when regarding what they'd pay.
He got 100 points last season, but many Canucks fans and apparently GMs don't see him as a player that, majority of the time, will be that kind of player. Especially moving forward.
Calling him a 100 point player is disingenuous if you're trying to advertise him as a guy who's likely to continue to be that guy. Otherwise, that accomplishment means nothing to teams who are only concerned with what he'll do for them in the future.
- May 3, 2021
- 9,157
- 9,160
Everyone knows scoring was way abnormally up this year and that no gaudy total from this year matches its predecessors because of the weird 92/93ish vibe.
You care way too much about this.
A1LeafNation
Good, is simply not good enough!
- Oct 17, 2010
- 27,928
- 18,154
I think you can say that he's been closer to ppg his last few years. However, there is probably a decline coming similar to most players on the wrong side of 30. I'd place him as a 70 point player (25-45) over the next 5 years.
So if I'm trading for him as a rental, he'd probably get a Giroux type return and if I'm trading to re-sign him, you'd probably throw in an extra first or something along those lines.
I agree with this. He had "100 points" but it's more fair to brand him a "PPG player" because that's what he's been for 3 years now.
So I don't think Canucks fans should expect the value in return of a 100 point player, but at the same time, I think a lot of fans from other teams are trolling us with how little they think a versatile PPG power forward is worth regardless of contract situation and age.
To be honest, I think a lot of that has to do with people having this idea stuck in their head that he's a secondary grinder or something because that's what he was known as for the 6 years (2/3rds) of his career.
Plot twist. There's rumors he wants to return home. What if he tells the Canucks he'll only sign an extension there?
No, it's disingenuous because he's not a 100 point player, he is a 99 point player
.I fully understand the desire to want to pay a lower price for a player based on the idea that he may or may not replicate that point total. But if a trade were to occur today, the value is a 99 point player. If the hypothetical trade occured the year prior it would be a different value, if the hypothetical trade occurs a year from now (pretending we still have his rights in this hypothetical) the value may be different again based on what he did.
If you can go back umpteen number of years, and base value on that (as is one argument against the value of Miller, that he only scored 47 points 4 years ago) then I shudder to think what Andrei Svechnikov would go for. And the flipside is that if we are going to base a trade on perceived value going forward, then I can very easily make the case that (Insert superstar here) will likely produce less points than he is currently at, so I should get him at a reduced rate.
Canucks LB
My Favourite, Gone too soon, RIP Luc, We miss you
- Oct 12, 2008
- 80,130
- 36,072
Listen, with all due respect, and I’m not trying to be disrespectful at all, I have seen sugarcoating stats before, But holy shit, legit might be one of the worst posts i have seen all month.
A1LeafNation
Good, is simply not good enough!
- Oct 17, 2010
- 27,928
- 18,154
I was just pointing out the other side of the coin 2 years this way vs 2 years that way. Sorry if you didn't get that.
Peter Griffin
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2003
- 35,771
- 8,697
Then you either deal with the home team on a deal including an extension(I’m assuming Pittsburgh) or trade him to the highest bidder as a rental. You absolutely do not let this play out like Calgary did with Gaudreau.
Buresflyingelbow
VanCity
- Feb 19, 2018
- 2,746
- 1,958
Fact of the matter is he has no trade protection so the Canucks are in no rush until they get their ask or close to it. The fact his cap hit is $5.25 million is a cherry on top as he can be structured into many different deals, retention or not! I think he ends up on the Rangers if they lose out on Kadri, one of Kakko, Schneider or Lafrenier will probably be in the deal. I could see the Canucks only wanting Schneider out of the deal or Lafrenier at this point due to having a ton of wingers and need a C or D prospect coming back in return, Lafrenier just because of potential and status as 1st overall.
- Nov 2, 2011
- 7,922
- 8,246
Canucks aren't getting that, how long can you keep the delusion up?
Sweetpotato
Registered User
The actual 47 point season is 4 years ago, the other one was 46 points in 53 games in a shortened season. Everyone understands what you're saying, its just illogical how you're trying to frame it.
DearDiary
🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷
- Aug 29, 2010
- 15,367
- 12,929
A recent 1st or 2nd overall pick for a rental? Are you serious?
A1LeafNation
Good, is simply not good enough!
- Oct 17, 2010
- 27,928
- 18,154
All I'm trying to say is he is a 80 point player now in his peak years, and probably a 70 point player in his early 30s.
Sweetpotato
Registered User
And that's fine. I actually wouldn't disagree that's highly likely.
But what I and others are saying is trying to explain or back that up the way you did was highly disingenuous using the farthest season away and one that was a shortened season.
CascadiaPuck
Proud Canucks investor.
And he can play all forward positions, win face offs at a high rate, and deliver on both the PP and PK.
60 point player my arse. Muted.
A1LeafNation
Good, is simply not good enough!
- Oct 17, 2010
- 27,928
- 18,154
Was only countering the disingenuous way that what he is now is what he will be moving forward.
PuckLuck3043
Stairway To Heaven
Not go
Not going to happen. Just posturing by them to try to get a better deal.
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: Caps @ Pens 3pm . Honoring the great Mike Lange!
- Latest: MetalheadPenguinsFan
-
