Player Discussion JT Miller Thread

[F A N]

This is kind of an interesting tangent that I hadn't really considered, excuse the rambling.

Personally, I don't see the issue of quoting someone else to make your point for you. If the opinion-holder being a "nobody" was relevant in any way, then we shouldn't really be talking to each other to begin with, as we could easily say the same thing about each other.

I do prefer when people make their points in their own words, but it does seem weirdly possessive to tell people not to do it, as if there's something wrong with it. Taking someone using a quote to make a point as "trying to pass it off as a substantive thing" sounds like more of a you-taking-things-the-wrong-way-and-needing-to-be-less-presumptuous problem than an actual fair reading (I'm not aware of that poster's history or any potential trend of disingenuousness, though). As far as I can see, there's nothing in his post that actually indicates that. I guess he COULD have added a line saying "I agree with this take:", but at best it comes across as ambiguous and confusing otherwise rather than misleading.

People quote other "nobody" posters for truth all the time-- why does that change if that other poster is from another platform? There's something to be said for giving a person credit for having a thought that you agree with and find more eloquent than you could make. I mean, how obnoxious would it be to respond to someone quoting an MS opinion that they agree with with "Who cares what this nobody thinks!?"

The guy being quoted may be making a stupid point, but that can be individually criticized (along with the choice to pass it along) without anything being wrong with the act of quoting a "nobody"'s opinion, IMO.

It's almost like some of us have become wired to treat Twitter itself as some sort of inherent illusion of authority and respectability, and that may be the actual problem here..... but if so, we really should just stop doing that, rather than start telling people not to use it in any other way, IMO.

I don't take issue if a nobody was quoted for their research or original opinion. But let's not pretend that "did you see the Sedins do that" or even "did you see Kesler do that" vis a vis Miller is somehow such an original idea that we have not once discussed this in the past couple of years? I mean where do we draw the line? Let's quote some nobody on twitter saying Hughes deserves captaincy consideration? And of course one could actually be referring to oneself and trying to drum up views and followers which would be against site rules?

But to actually address the point that nobody made though. The Sedins ended up earning their reputation as great leaders and setting down a culture where win or loss good play or bad play they always made themselves available to speak to the media and answer questions. Horvat learned from the Sedins. I don't think Kesler ever left the bench early but he has certainly left immediately after games to avoid speaking with the media. He also wanted out as soon as the going got tough. I mean as it turned out Kesler only had 3 prime seasons left so in hindsight you can hardly blame him too much for wanting to win a Cup before he was done.

 

[strattonius]

Kesler is/was a dweeb.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't take issue if a nobody was quoted for their research or original opinion. But let's not pretend that "did you see the Sedins do that" or even "did you see Kesler do that" vis a vis Miller is somehow such an original idea that we have not once discussed this in the past couple of years? I mean where do we draw the line? Let's quote some nobody on twitter saying Hughes deserves captaincy consideration? And of course one could actually be referring to oneself and trying to drum up views and followers which would be against site rules?

But to actually address the point that nobody made though. The Sedins ended up earning their reputation as great leaders and setting down a culture where win or loss good play or bad play they always made themselves available to speak to the media and answer questions. Horvat learned from the Sedins. I don't think Kesler ever left the bench early but he has certainly left immediately after games to avoid speaking with the media. He also wanted out as soon as the going got tough. I mean as it turned out Kesler only had 3 prime seasons left so in hindsight you can hardly blame him too much for wanting to win a Cup before he was done.

I wasn't suggesting/"pretending" that a quote's originality is what warrants it. If the post quoted by a nobody happens to be moronic and unoriginal, that to me is no different from a post made by a nobody poster being moronic and unoriginal, as far as I can see. It's very reasonable to ruthlessly criticize that, sure, I agree (or mock the poster for being unable to make such an unoriginal point themselves)..... but it's still not the act of quoting someone that ought to make it any more objectionable, it's the contents/reasoning behind what they're trying to convey.

Like... you can trash someone for thinking and highlighting a dumb idea, but in my view, you shouldn't be able to go "This poster thinks something dumb, therefore he/she shouldn't be allowed to use the same tools everyone else reasonably can in order to make his/her dumb point."

If you agree that a thoughtful and original nobody opinion should be welcome, then you agree that their actual "nobody-ness" is pretty irrelevant/non-disqualifying in all this, no? It's the strength of the opinion itself that should be targeted.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Kesler is/was a dweeb.

Oh you..

 

[EpochLink]

Kesler is/was a dweeb.

f*** Kesler, bitch ass ******

 

[Cancuks]

He needs to go. He still has value at this point but that'll change as soon as his NMC kicks in. Can't have OEL and Miller on the same team taking up $15 million in cap space long term.

 

[strattonius]

He needs to go. He still has value at this point but that'll change as soon as his NMC kicks in. Can't have OEL and Miller on the same team taking up $15 million in cap space long term.

OEL sucks.
Miller is good.

These two shouldn't be contract comparables or lumped in to the same strategy.

You're saying a 3rd pairing dman for 50 games a year making 7.2M is = to a 90 pt C/W all purpose 1st line player. Also, I think Miller has a few more years left while OEL's knees look like they're already dust.

Miller won't be this team's CAP problems if he's playing at this level. I give him 3 good years left, 2 declining years, 2 bad years. Given where this management wants this team next year there is no need to treat his contract as a problem.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

OEL sucks.
Miller is good.

These two shouldn't be contract comparables or lumped in to the same strategy.

You're saying a 3rd pairing dman for 50 games a year making 7.2M is = to a 90 pt C/W all purpose 1st line player. Also, I think Miller has a few more years left while OEL's knees look like they're already dust.

Miller won't be this team's CAP problems if he's playing at this level. I give him 3 good years left, 2 declining years, 2 bad years. Given where this management wants this team next year there is no need to treat his contract as a problem.

My reasonable brain can agree with you on Miller but my want brain needs a summer trade.

 

[F A N]

I wasn't suggesting/"pretending" that a quote's originality is what warrants it. If the post quoted by a nobody happens to be moronic and unoriginal, that to me is no different from a post made by a nobody poster being moronic and unoriginal, as far as I can see. It's very reasonable to ruthlessly criticize that, sure, I agree (or mock the poster for being unable to make such an unoriginal point themselves)..... but it's still not the act of quoting someone that ought to make it any more objectionable, it's the contents/reasoning behind what they're trying to convey.

Like... you can trash someone for thinking and highlighting a dumb idea, but in my view, you shouldn't be able to go "This poster thinks something dumb, therefore he/she shouldn't be allowed to use the same tools everyone else reasonably can in order to make his/her dumb point."

If you agree that a thoughtful and original nobody opinion should be welcome, then you agree that their actual "nobody-ness" is pretty irrelevant/non-disqualifying in all this, no? It's the strength of the opinion itself that should be targeted.

I disagree. Credit where credit is due. There is no sense crediting/quoting a nobody for an unoriginal idea. It's a waste of space. But if a known person said it, it does add some value to the discussion because you're quoting someone everyone knows here. A lot of university students still don't get the concept of quoting from reliable sources when writing academic papers and in the real world it matters. Anybody can point to a online article but whether we can reliable it depends on the author will you not agree? One can have their own personal opinion on the author but who the author is matters. I think you would agree that an opinion expressed by an expert in the field matters more than an opinion expressed by a nobody.

But generally, if a nobody put in the work that is worthy of discussion. For example, if a nobody put together a video of all the instances where Miller showed bad body language, that is worth linking. An unoriginal opinion that we has been parroted on here many many times is not.

I'll give you another example. There's a difference between IMac tweeting "the Canucks will continue to prioritize acquiring players who are 25 and younger this summer" and IMac tweeting "I spoke to Jim Rutherford and he said that the Canucks will look to acquire more players who are 25 and younger this summer." In the former case, the tweet should be posted in the media thread and will likely be ridiculed. But if it's someone more respectable who said it like Friedman then we probably interpret the comment as backed up by reliable sources . For the latter comment, as much as one might dislike IMac he does have enough credibility where we won't be questioning whether the discussion even happened. A nobody who tweeted that they spoke to Jim Rutherford will be dismissed without further proof (e.g. accompanying photo with JR).

 

[Shareefruck]

I disagree. Credit where credit is due. There is no sense crediting/quoting a nobody for an unoriginal idea. It's a waste of space. But if a known person said it, it does add some value to the discussion because you're quoting someone everyone knows here. A lot of university students still don't get the concept of quoting from reliable sources when writing academic papers and in the real world it matters. Anybody can point to a online article but whether we can reliable it depends on the author will you not agree? One can have their own personal opinion on the author but who the author is matters. I think you would agree that an opinion expressed by an expert in the field matters more than an opinion expressed by a nobody.

But generally, if a nobody put in the work that is worthy of discussion. For example, if a nobody put together a video of all the instances where Miller showed bad body language, that is worth linking. An unoriginal opinion that we has been parroted on here many many times is not.

I'll give you another example. There's a difference between IMac tweeting "the Canucks will continue to prioritize acquiring players who are 25 and younger this summer" and IMac tweeting "I spoke to Jim Rutherford and he said that the Canucks will look to acquire more players who are 25 and younger this summer." In the former case, the tweet should be posted in the media thread and will likely be ridiculed. But if it's someone more respectable who said it like Friedman then we probably interpret the comment as backed up by reliable sources . For the latter comment, as much as one might dislike IMac he does have enough credibility where we won't be questioning whether the discussion even happened. A nobody who tweeted that they spoke to Jim Rutherford will be dismissed without further proof (e.g. accompanying photo with JR).

I see. I feel like parallels being drawn to rumors or essay sources are a complete and total false equivalence, personally. Trust and credibility is not a factor when we're referencing reasoned opinions and thoughts rather than rumors, hearsay, expertise or factual assertions, in my view. Nothing's actually attempting to be passed off as any more than it actually is-- a totally subjective thought, which is something that anyone is entitled to. It's merely framed as food for thought and nothing more. Again, I think that idea particularly falls on its face when we're here posting our own opinions, despite being nobodies ourselves. Discussions on a message board are in no way obligated to be exchanges in expertise.

We can agree to disagree on that, though. It's not something I feel strongly about or do myself at all, it's just something where the logic doesn't really check out to me, and that strikes me as rather unfair.

I think it's reasonable to personally find a particular post and its quoted ideas useless or disagreeable, but that's not really a reason to object to its existence, IMO. There are a lot of people whose opinions are going to be useless to a lot of other people, I don't think that's really something to micromanage or be possessive about.

 

[F A N]

I see. I feel like parallels being drawn to rumors or essay sources are a complete and total false equivalence, personally. Trust and credibility is not a factor when we're referencing reasoned opinions and thoughts rather than rumors, hearsay, expertise or factual assertions, in my view. Nothing's actually attempting to be passed off as any more than it actually is-- a totally subjective thought, which is something that anyone is entitled to. It's merely framed as food for thought and nothing more. Again, I think that idea particularly falls on its face when we're here posting our own opinions, despite being nobodies ourselves. Discussions on a message board are in no way obligated to be exchanges in expertise.

We can agree to disagree on that, though. It's not something I feel strongly about or do myself at all, it's just something where the logic doesn't really check out to me, and that strikes me as rather unfair.

I think it's reasonable to personally find a particular post and its quoted ideas useless or disagreeable, but that's not really a reason to object to its existence, IMO. There are a lot of people whose opinions are going to be useless to a lot of other people, I don't think that's really something to micromanage or be possessive about.

Okay. Let's discuss your point about posting our own opinions. The post in question involved DFAC posting his opinion then linking/quoting an unoriginal twitter post from a nobody that supported his opinion? It wasn't quoted/linked for the purpose of discussion.

Again, from a practical perspective, what if I expressed an opinion then linked my own twitter account supporting my views? Would you like to read that? Would it be against site rules?

Discussions on a message board should involve discussions. If everyone simply quotes from some rando on twitter it would simply be annoying. That's just my opinion. Maybe many of us could just create memes and post them because why not?

 

[Zaddy91]

Rather have some who gets pissed off when we lose than someone who doesnt care and collects their salary.

Do not get the dislike for this guy when he has done nothing but produce.

 

[Shareefruck]

Okay. Let's discuss your point about posting our own opinions. The post in question involved DFAC posting his opinion then linking/quoting an unoriginal twitter post from a nobody that supported his opinion? It wasn't quoted/linked for the purpose of discussion.

Again, from a practical perspective, what if I expressed an opinion then linked my own twitter account supporting my views? Would you like to read that? Would it be against site rules?

Discussions on a message board should involve discussions. If everyone simply quotes from some rando on twitter it would simply be annoying. That's just my opinion. Maybe many of us could just create memes and post them because why not?

I'm not sure what your first point is. Is posting rhetoric or hypotheticals in support of your opinion not an example of discussion? It seems no different to the kind of points that we make in posts ourselves without quoting things, from my perspective. It may be a bad point/bad reasoning in this case, but people often make those in their own posts as well.

The second point seems a little silly to me. If you quote a rando's point who may or may not be your own twitter, people would just take the point at face value, and then if you continuously quote from it over and over again and it seems to always align to your views, people will become suspicious of it being you and against site rules. It's only a problem in the specific instances where it gets out of control and becomes a problem, which is the case with everything.

Regarding the third point, don't people already quote randos on twitters who posted memes or anecdotes that they find funny (I recall that being more common than quoting rando opinions)? It isn't and has never been a problem, from what I recall. Seems like the possibility of stuff like that being spammed to the point of obnoxiousness would be equal to the possibility/obnoxiousness of joke posts (w/o twitter quotes) being spammed, or meme gifs being embedded into posts (which I'm under the impression is also allowed and already happens all the time). Seems like the same thing.

Went back a few pages and found these, for example (which again, I don't see as an issue). Do these annoy you too?

View attachment 674399

ok snoop dawg

doubt it

View attachment 667655

Again, I have no idea who DFAC even is or if they have a history of disingenuousness (I'm open to the possibility that they're acting in bad faith in this instance and I'm just unaware of it), but broadly speaking, the idea/objection itself seems like much ado about nothing, to me.

 

[Grantham]

I remember Charles Barkley was very similar in temperament. The famous "I am not a role-model" was his way of telling everybody to get off his back and stop trying to mold him into something he wasn't

 

[VanJack]

The Hockey Writers website is reporting the Canucks and Penguins were just that close to pulling off a Miller for Zucker trade.

According to their sources, the trade was Miller for Zucker and a couple of conditional first rounders. Then Allvin's plan was to ship Zucker to another NHL team in the East, acquiring even more draft picks.

Apparently the deal foundered from the Canucks end when they couldn't find a trading partner for Zucker. And since Zucker is an impending UFA, they were concerned they could lose him for nothing in the off-season.

If true, and there's no reason to think that it isn't true, then you have to give some props to Allvin. He was at least close to acquiring the draft picks the Canucks so desperately need.

But makes you wonder about what happens to Miller this off-season. If the Canucks were so close to trading him at the TDL, clearly a deal this summer is more than a 'remote possibility'.

 

[me2]

The Hockey Writers website is reporting the Canucks and Penguins were just that close to pulling off a Miller for Zucker trade.

According to their sources, the trade was Miller for Zucker and a couple of conditional first rounders. Then Allvin's plan was to ship Zucker to another NHL team in the East, acquiring even more draft picks.

Apparently the deal foundered from the Canucks end when they couldn't find a trading partner for Zucker. And since Zucker is an impending UFA, they were concerned they could lose him for nothing in the off-season.

If true, and there's no reason to think that it isn't true, then you have to give some props to Allvin. He was at least close to acquiring the draft picks the Canucks so desperately need.

But makes you wonder about what happens to Miller this off-season. If the Canucks were so close to trading him at the TDL, clearly a deal this summer is more than a 'remote possibility'.

Weird. Canucks didn't pull the trigger because of moving Zucker? What exactly were they expecting as a return from UFA Zucker, a 3rd? Maybe a 2nd? And if that was what tanked the deal..... If that was all that is poor GMng. I'd rather believe Miller was not on the trade block than accept that is what killed the deal.

 

[racerjoe]

Weird. Canucks didn't pull the trigger because of moving Zucker? What exactly were they expecting as a return from UFA Zucker, a 3rd? Maybe a 2nd? And if that was what tanked the deal..... If that was all that is poor GMng. I'd rather believe Miller was not on the trade block than accept that is what killed the deal.

I definitely think the Canucks and pens were talking trade, and most likely even about Miller. I just also don't believe most of the stuff that has been coming out. Most of it just doesn't make enough sense... from either side.

 

[F A N]

Weird. Canucks didn't pull the trigger because of moving Zucker? What exactly were they expecting as a return from UFA Zucker, a 3rd? Maybe a 2nd? And if that was what tanked the deal..... If that was all that is poor GMng. I'd rather believe Miller was not on the trade block than accept that is what killed the deal.

Zucker was an asset though and not a negative asset throw-in to make the deal work. He is a pending UFA having a solid season who has little to no value to us if not flipped for assets? He also went on a tear near the deadline. He should return a late first, good prospect or 2nd plus a prospect?

What I am interested in is were the Penguins willing to give up two 1st round picks + Zucker? If so what are the protections if any for the 2023 first round pick? I am all for valuing Miller highly in a trade but I fear this may be another missed opportunity.

 

[F A N]

I'm not sure what your first point is. Is posting rhetoric or hypotheticals in support of your opinion not an example of discussion? It seems no different to the kind of points that we make in posts ourselves without quoting things, from my perspective. It may be a bad point/bad reasoning in this case, but people often make those in their own posts as well.

The second point seems a little silly to me. If you quote a rando's point who may or may not be your own twitter, people would just take the point at face value, and then if you continuously quote from it over and over again and it seems to always align to your views, people will become suspicious of it being you and against site rules. It's only a problem in the specific instances where it gets out of control and becomes a problem, which is the case with everything.

Regarding the third point, don't people already quote randos on twitters who posted memes or anecdotes that they find funny (I recall that being more common than quoting rando opinions)? It isn't and has never been a problem, from what I recall. Seems like the possibility of stuff like that being spammed to the point of obnoxiousness would be equal to the possibility/obnoxiousness of joke posts (w/o twitter quotes) being spammed, or meme gifs being embedded into posts (which I'm under the impression is also allowed and already happens all the time). Seems like the same thing.

Went back a few pages and found these, for example (which again, I don't see as an issue). Do these annoy you too?




Again, I have no idea who DFAC even is or if they have a history of disingenuousness (I'm open to the possibility that they're acting in bad faith in this instance and I'm just unaware of it), but broadly speaking, the idea/objection itself seems like much ado about nothing, to me.

I don’t care enough to respond further and I respect that you have a different view on the matter. I will just say that I think in current times there are obvious differences between posting gifs and memes intended to be attempts at humour and quoting a stupid point made by a random on twitter.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don’t care enough to respond further and I respect that you have a different view on the matter. I will just say that I think in current times there are obvious differences between posting gifs and memes intended to be attempts at humour and quoting a stupid point made by a random on twitter.

I agree, but you're misframing my argument here. I didn't mention gifs and memes in order to flippantly change the subject by comparing them to stupid points being made (I agree that they're completely different things), I was bringing them up specifically to address this point, where you initiated the comparison yourself:

Discussions on a message board should involve discussions. If everyone simply quotes from some rando on twitter it would simply be annoying. That's just my opinion. Maybe many of us could just create memes and post them because why not?

I interpreted this as a suggestion from you that quoting stupid posts is a slippery slope towards (or would justify) quoting/posting stupid memes (seemingly presented as something agreeably even worst/more absurd, which I don't actually feel is the case, myself). I'm just going along with your premise and pointing out that IF that is the absurd outcome that quoting stupid posts would somehow justify, it's not really even that absurd/problematic, nor is it any different from what we already do, accept, and enjoy.

 

[EpochLink]

Not quite the 99 points from Miller this year but stellar year for him, another 30+ goal season from him and 80+ points.

Solid production, he should have another good season next year

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Not quite the 99 points from Miller this year but stellar year for him, another 30+ goal season from him and 80+ points.

Solid production, he should have another good season next year

The season doesn't start in January.

The 2022-23 overall was horrific from Miller. If we get a similar season from him next year, his extension will be remembered as one of the worst mistakes the franchise has ever made.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

So we want more guys that gives up on back checking, and is careless with the puck all over the ice leading to turnovers? Doesn't sound like a winning formula to me.

But he smashed his sticks and yelled at his teammates so he obviously care, while those quiet Euros like Sedins, Petterson, Naslund, Ohlund clearly are content with losing, right?

Have you watched him play since Tochett took over? I get it's during garbage time, and the games don't matter but still, also watched him play last year? The year before? 99 points last year, this feels like more of a coaching issue than a Miller issue.

Players yell at goalies to get off the ice all the time, players also smash their sticks all the time, Miller just gets shit on more because of it, because people love to shit on the guy. I know, I was one of the people shitting on him.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Have you watched him play since Tochett took over? I get it's during garbage time, and the games don't matter but still, also watched him play last year? The year before? 99 points last year, this feels like more of a coaching issue than a Miller issue.

Players yell at goalies to get off the ice all the time, players also smash their sticks all the time, Miller just gets shit on more because of it, because people love to shit on the guy. I know, I was one of the people shitting on him.

This has been Miller his whole career.

He has always been his own worst enemy.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

This has been Miller his whole career.

He has always been his own worst enemy.

You can honestly say that about any player, Millers biggest issue is he hates losing, if I was stuck on a team so adept at losing, I'd be pissed too. For the most part he has been one of the best players on this team since we traded for him, the half of this year that this wasn't the case, doesn't change that.