Player Discussion What do we have in J.T. Miller? | Part 2

[Frankie Blueberries]

Well your post including wild rumours of Benning not negotiating is certainly proof of that. The irony is quite amazing.

See my post right above yours for an explanation.
Using a fringe point to try to win an argument is dumb. We both know that's not the most important reason why people originally criticized the trade.

 

[DonnyNucker]

It's just a rumour - like I said, normally I'd just discard it, but there are other rumours of different, similar stories as well. Either way though, it's not one of the more important factors in evaluating the trade. The team's trajectory at the time of the trade, along with Benning's track record of pro-scouting, were the main causes for concern.

It is amusing to see all these people chest thumping about how good the trade was, when they never even watched J.T. Miller before the trade occurred aside from a handful of games, and we still don't even know where the pick ends up lol.

I barely watched Miller play before he joined Van so I stayed neutral. for me, it took around 25 games for me to decide it was a win. Regardless of draft position. But I see both sides to the argument for sure

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I barely watched Miller play before he joined Van so I stayed neutral. for me, it took around 25 games for me to decide it was a win. Regardless of draft position. But I see both sides to the argument for sure

I agree. I'm slightly leaning towards it being a win, but I'm still fairly neutral (if we somehow end up picking top 10, it could easily be a loss if a Pettersson/Hughes player is available). In a vacuum, the trade is awesome and I understand why Benning did it. But given the context, there were plenty of reasons that gave cause for concern.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

See my post right above yours for an explanation.
Using a fringe point to try to win an argument is dumb. We both know that's not the most important reason why people originally criticized the trade.

A fringe point that took up 6 lines of your 9 lines of reasons for not liking the trade.
If that’s a long winded way of saying you screwed up in your original post by resorting to wild conspiracy theories then I agree. Let’s keep the discussion logical and rational.
There were rational reasons to be concerned with the trade at the time given the potential price that could have been paid.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

If that’s a long winded way of saying you screwed up in your original post by resorting to wild conspiracy theories then I agree. Let’s keep the discussion logical and rational.
There were rational reasons to be concerned with the trade at the time given the potential price that could have been paid.

You're using my 3rd tertiary point of the argument to say the whole argument isn't great. That's not debating in good faith, you're just taking a lame potshot to try to spin things.

If you can address the first two points (1. the team's trajectory at the time of the trade - that being bottom 10 finishes for four consecutive years; and 2. the team's poor pro-scouting record), then go ahead. No need to be condescending, let's keep this discussion civil.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

You're using my 3rd tertiary point of the argument to say the whole argument isn't great. That's not debating in good faith, you're just taking a lame potshot to try to spin things.

If you can address the first two points (1. the team's trajectory at the time of the trade - that being bottom 10 finishes for four consecutive years; and 2. the team's poor pro-scouting record). No need to be condescending, let's keep this discussion civil.

Incorrect. You used 6 lines of your 9 lines of reasoning on a wild conspiracy theory. Maybe next time you post you could highlight what parts are nonsense and should be ignored. So that people don’t call you out for the ‘fringe’ or ‘tertiary’ parts that take up most of your post.
A poster so devoted to logic and reason would just acknowledge his mistake instead of doubling down on his mistake and trying to divert from it by accusing others of not debating in good faith. That is what passes for mature and civil debate.
Having the maturity to admit ones mistakes.

As for your other points I’ve already acknowledged that their were valid reasons for not liking the trade. There was really no need to resort to fictitious ones in the first place.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Incorrect. You used 6 lines of your 9 lines of reasoning on a wild conspiracy theory. Maybe next time you post you could highlight what parts are nonsense and should be ignored. So that people don’t call you out for the ‘fringe’ or ‘tertiary’ parts that take up most of your post.
A poster so devoted to logic and reason would just acknowledge his mistake instead of doubling down on his mistake and trying to divert from it by accusing others of not debating in good faith.

A rumour isn't a conspiracy theory (especially multiple rumours). I don't think you understand what a conspiracy theory is if that's your interpretation.

I mentioned the other two points first (i.e. prioritized them) because they are more important in evaluating the trade at the time. I then clarified this later (you're still struggling to grasp this for some reason).

Now you're just trying to derail the discussion, way to go.

 

[Ginger Papa]

Man this the most frustrating narrative of all on hockey buzz. There is no way you actually believe that benning didn’t try to negotiate. You are smart guy and surely you know this isn’t true. So why write this comment? It’s incredibly disingenuous . Benning himself said TA was asking for more and this is what they settled on.

I mean a 6 year old knows how to negotiate and you think a man running a $500 million franchise doesn’t know how to or refuses to? Absurd. He may sound like an idiot on interviews but I don’t think his IQ is below 70

 

[WetcoastOrca]

A rumour isn't a conspiracy theory (especially multiple rumours). I don't think you understand what a conspiracy theory is if that's your interpretation.

I mentioned the other two points first (i.e. prioritized them) because they are more important in evaluating the trade at the time. I then clarified this later (you're still struggling to grasp this for some reason).

Now you're just trying to derail the discussion, way to go.

Nope. You’ve derailed the discussion yourself by devoting most of your argument to wild conspiracy theories and then tripling down when called out on it.
There is no need to be so defensive when you get called out for making stuff up. Just acknowledge your mistake and in the future learn to debate in good faith and don’t feel that it is a negative to admit the occasional mistake. Discussion boards work better when every one is able to do that.
Anyways I’ll leave you to it. You seem to have a need to always be right and to get the last word in rather than debating in good faith. I’ll keep that in the mind when deciding whether it’s worth responding in the future.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Nope. You’ve derailed the discussion yourself by devoting most of your argument to wild conspiracy theories and then tripling down when called out on it.
There is no need to be so defensive when you get called out for making stuff up. Just acknowledge your mistake and in the future learn to debate in good faith and don’t feel that it is a negative to admit the occasional mistake. Discussion boards work better when every one is able to do that.
Anyways I’ll leave you to it.

You're using my 3rd tertiary point of the argument to say the whole argument isn't great. That's not debating in good faith, you're just taking a lame potshot to try to spin things.


If you can address the first two points (1. the team's trajectory at the time of the trade - that being bottom 10 finishes for four consecutive years; and 2. the team's poor pro-scouting record), then go ahead. No need to be condescending, let's keep this discussion civil.

I tried to get it back on topic. You conveniently ignored this part.
I have clarified in multiple posts that these are the two main issues with the trade. Why are you having such a difficult time addressing this? If you can't, don't keep rambling on about how rumours and conspiracy theorists are the same thing.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Coupled with the fact that the Canucks have finished in the bottom 10 in the league for the last four seasons, and the rumour that Benning didn't try to negotiate the offer at all (in isolation this seems unlikely, but a similar report came out about the McCann + 33rd overall for Gudbranson trade).

But facts and logical reasoning don't matter. It's all hindsight arguments that will prevail, which miss the point of judging the trade at the time it happened.

Not for me
I was confident that Miller is worth the price from the start, not that I expected him to be on his current pace but consider his contract and track record, it’s just a good trade

 

[Bleach Clean]

Man this the most frustrating narrative of all on hockey buzz. There is no way you actually believe that benning didn’t try to negotiate. You are smart guy and surely you know this isn’t true. So why write this comment? It’s incredibly disingenuous . Benning himself said TA was asking for more and this is what they settled on.

I mean a 6 year old knows how to negotiate and you think a man running a $500 million franchise doesn’t know how to or refuses to? Absurd. He may sound like an idiot on interviews but I don’t think his IQ is below 70

I think the implication is that despite knowing the rules of negotiation, Benning is poor at actually conducting negotiations. It's knowledge vs execution. There is more than one piece of evidence to suggest that this is true, the least of which is Benning's overall asset management record.

Benning probably knows, but doesn't show that he knows.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Not for me
I was confident that Miller is worth the price from the start, not that I expected him to be on his current pace but consider his contract and track record, it’s just a good trade

This is a position I find to be untenable given the following factors:

- Timing
- State of the Canucks
- Miller's lowered totals
- TBay's cap constraints
- The pick potentially being unprotected

This deal was generally panned at first blush, and rightly so. When you're assessing a deal through the lens of these factors at the time, I think you would be hard pressed to argue logically that it was shrewd management... but you are more than welcome to try?

I'm just glad that VAN might give up their 1st this year, rather than have it be unprotected in 2021. That's a massive shift in the perception of this deal, IMO.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

This is a position I find to be untenable given the following factors:

- Timing
- State of the Canucks
- Miller's lowered totals
- TBay's cap constraints
- The pick potentially being unprotected

This deal was generally panned at first blush, and rightly so. When you're assessing a deal through the lens of these factors at the time, I think you would be hard pressed to argue logically that it was shrewd management... but you are more than welcome to try?

I'm just glad that VAN might give up their 1st this year, rather than have it be unprotected in 2021. That's massive shift in the perception of this deal, IMO.

It was definitely a move a bubble/playoff team should have made, not a bottom 10 team.
We got lucky that Hughes has been as good as he has, we've sustained no major injuries (Edler/Tanev/Markstrom), and all of our younger players have continued to improve on previous seasons. If these things don't all line up perfectly, we're likely battling for a wild card spot.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

You're using my 3rd tertiary point of the argument to say the whole argument isn't great. That's not debating in good faith, you're just taking a lame potshot to try to spin things.

If you can address the first two points (1. the team's trajectory at the time of the trade - that being bottom 10 finishes for four consecutive years; and 2. the team's poor pro-scouting record), then go ahead. No need to be condescending, let's keep this discussion civil.

The teams trajectory at the time of the trade was a team on the ascendant..I think that was pretty clear as was demonstrated by the play of the young core players at the end of the previous season (especially when Hughes got here, and the play of Markstrom)..

Yes, the team bottomed out for four seasons..Most teams that are transitioning from an old core to a new one generally finish low in the standings (not rocket scientist stuff there)..You always reference Bennings transactions from his first two years on the job.(bleeding 2nds,Sbisa,Sutter ,Lack etc) ....Its a given.. This is obviously going be your 'go to' move from now on..Is this why we should expect Benning to screw up every single transaction in the future?

A lot of posters were loathe to give up a 1st for Miller (myself included)..but it turned out to be a great move..A lot of posters didn't know a lot about Miller..Most of the experts on your side claimed he was nothing more than a middle six winger (would you like me to dig up the quotes?)

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

The teams trajectory at the time of the trade was a team on the ascendant..I think that was pretty clear as was demonstrated by the play of the young core players at the end of the previous season (especially when Hughes got here, and the play of Markstrom)..

Yes, the team bottomed out for four seasons..Most teams that are transitioning from an old core to a new one generally finish low in the standings (not rocket scientist stuff there)..You always reference Bennings transactions from his first two years on the job.(bleeding 2nds,Sbisa,Sutter ,Lack etc) ....Its a given.. This is obviously going be your 'go to' move from now on..Is this why we should expect Benning to screw up every single transaction in the future?

A lot of posters were loathe to give up a 1st for Miller (myself included)..but it turned out to be a great move..A lot of posters didn't know a lot about Miller..Most of the experts on your side claimed he was nothing more than a middle six winger (would you like me to dig up the quotes?)

There were still a lot of question marks with how this season would go. Players often suffer sophomore slumps (and Pettersson slowed down considerably in the latter half of last season once players became aware of his skill). If you look at Hughes' point predictions, pretty much no one guessed his season would go this well. Injuries always seem to hit Edler/Tanev. We've been very fortunate with how things have worked out this year, and whether people like to admit it or not, I think Green deserves some credit.

It's a trade that would have made more sense if we had more certainty/data to go off (i.e. at least one season of coming close to the playoffs).

At the end of the day, it was a very risky move that had a large amount of uncertainty and contingencies attached to it. Being skeptical of these risks/uncertainties is fair. I think we can all agree Miller is a great player though; I drafted him in the 5th round of my fantasy draft so I'm very happy with how the trade has gone so far - just pointing out why the skepticism was justified at the time it happened.

 

[Bleach Clean]

It was definitely a move a bubble/playoff team should have made, not a bottom 10 team.
We got lucky that Hughes has been as good as he has, we've sustained no major injuries (Edler/Tanev/Markstrom), and all of our younger players have continued to improve on previous seasons. If these things don't all line up perfectly, we're likely battling for a wild card spot.

Hughes playing like a #1Dman and Miller having a career year... Yes, things had to align to get here. I think @I am toxic's post sums this up well: Confirmed with Link: - Canucks do not qualify Ben Hutton, he is now a UFA

I think another underrated aspect here is that Demko is on the rise as well. This team is seldom without good goaltending, even if his numbers don't quite show it yet. After all, game to game consistency is often the difference between playoff and non-playoff teams. Demko is helping here.

These unforeseen surrounding aspects to the trade are buoying the perception of the trade itself, as you say. I'm wondering if people would feel the same way had Miller stayed on a career pace, but with the team outside the playoffs? That would have been a debate for sure.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

The teams trajectory at the time of the trade was a team on the ascendant..I think that was pretty clear as was demonstrated by the play of the young core players at the end of the previous season (especially when Hughes got here, and the play of Markstrom)..

Yes, the team bottomed out for four seasons..Most teams that are transitioning from an old core to a new one generally finish low in the standings (not rocket scientist stuff there)..You always reference Bennings transactions from his first two years on the job.(bleeding 2nds,Sbisa,Sutter ,Lack etc) ....Its a given.. This is obviously going be your 'go to' move from now on..Is this why we should expect Benning to screw up every single transaction in the future?

A lot of posters were loathe to give up a 1st for Miller (myself included)..but it turned out to be a great move..A lot of posters didn't know a lot about Miller..Most of the experts on your side claimed he was nothing more than a middle six winger (would you like me to dig up the quotes?)

Agreed I prefer to judge trades on what actually happened. Not made up rumours.
It was a perfectly valid opinion to not like the trade at the time it was made given the risks that the pick ended up being a lottery pick. But I also think many people thought that the team was a playoff bubble team and that the odds of this being a lottery pick after two years were quite low. Obviously Miller had a high likelihood of being a top 6 player in Vancouver given the fact that TBay was just so deep. These are the exact kind of under utilized players we should be targeting.

 

[canuckking1]

Wish he was signed longer. Contract is an absolute steal.

 

[Spectrefire]

Canucks have had a record of piss-poor pro-scouting. Plus, Miller was coming off a down year.
You're telling me there wasn't a reason to be skeptical?

If a player who posted a 48 point season is having a down year, then that's a pretty f***ing good player.

 

[WTG]

If a player who posted a 48 point season is having a down year, then that's a pretty ****ing good player.

It is, but that players value is entirely different than it is now.
Tampa was in cap trouble, off-loading a guy who had a down year is something they wanted. So going into trade negotiations, Canucks came in from a position of strength. And they still paid a premium on him. You have to judge the value of a player at the time the trade was made, not post. The deal, at the time, was risky. With the way, the Canucks pro-scouting has been shoddy in the past and Benning's tendency to overpay for players he wants.

Now you can say, "Hey, what a gamble, it worked out!". Or you can say, "This was hitting on 16 and getting 21.". Both arguments can be considered.
I think you can make another argument in favor of Benning, saying, "Benning paid a premium because he wanted to get out ahead and not get into a bidding war.". I think that's a pretty valid argument.

Another point I want to add here is not to get tribalistic over this. This trade has worked out for the team, and Benning deserves credit for it. I don't think many Canucks fans are upset that Miller is on the team. Instead, they believe that Benning could have made a better deal considering the circumstances. Let's not turn this into something where the two sides (pro-Benning/anti-Benning) draw a line in the sand and yell at each other. There can be a conversation about the risk that was involved in this deal.


This isn't reddit where unpopular opinions get squashed.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

JT Miller is a 26 years old 1st line winger who can win face off, kills penalty and is nearly PPG. Makes 5.25m until 2023, the guy is literally a fictional character that EA NHL auto generates 5 years into the GM mode.

But no, would rather miss the playoff again, plays the lottery and lose it again, wait another couple years for development and hope the prospect can reaches Miller’s level

Seriously, who ever still disliking the trade (like really dislike it, not because it’s a win by the management) needs to stop snaking, I know it’s legal but not that legal

 

[F A N]

It is, but that players value is entirely different than it is now.
Tampa was in cap trouble, off-loading a guy who had a down year is something they wanted. So going into trade negotiations, Canucks came in from a position of strength. And they still paid a premium on him. You have to judge the value of a player at the time the trade was made, not post. The deal, at the time, was risky. With the way, the Canucks pro-scouting has been shoddy in the past and Benning's tendency to overpay for players he wants.

Now you can say, "Hey, what a gamble, it worked out!". Or you can say, "This was hitting on 16 and getting 21.". Both arguments can be considered.
I think you can make another argument in favor of Benning, saying, "Benning paid a premium because he wanted to get out ahead and not get into a bidding war.". I think that's a pretty valid argument.

Another point I want to add here is not to get tribalistic over this. This trade has worked out for the team, and Benning deserves credit for it. I don't think many Canucks fans are upset that Miller is on the team. Instead, they believe that Benning could have made a better deal considering the circumstances. Let's not turn this into something where the two sides (pro-Benning/anti-Benning) draw a line in the sand and yell at each other. There can be a conversation about the risk that was involved in this deal.


This isn't reddit where unpopular opinions get squashed.

But the whole premise of your argument (which others on here share) is that TB who was in cap trouble and looking to off-load a guy who had a down year is willing to offload the player for less that what they think he is worth.

Everyone knew that Gillis had to trade Luongo but what happened? He traded Schneider.

Your view of the trade is simply one sided. Nowhere in your post has considered what Benning saw in Miller. A good deal is a good deal. Just because someone is desperate doesn't mean they are willing to sell for less than what they think their asset is worth.

For example, have you tried buying new ready to move in homes at a discount? You would think the developer is desperate to unload the homes but they won't sell for far below their asking price. Anyways I have digressed...

JT Miller has been an excellent trade for the Canucks thus far. Who cares if the Canucks paid the highest price out of the possible suitors. It's like not buying a stock that has shot up because you didn't think it was good value then. You were wrong. Get over it. No one cares why you think it wasn't good value because today you can't buy it at that price.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

It is, but that players value is entirely different than it is now.
Tampa was in cap trouble, off-loading a guy who had a down year is something they wanted. So going into trade negotiations, Canucks came in from a position of strength. And they still paid a premium on him. You have to judge the value of a player at the time the trade was made, not post. The deal, at the time, was risky. With the way, the Canucks pro-scouting has been shoddy in the past and Benning's tendency to overpay for players he wants.

Now you can say, "Hey, what a gamble, it worked out!". Or you can say, "This was hitting on 16 and getting 21.". Both arguments can be considered.
I think you can make another argument in favor of Benning, saying, "Benning paid a premium because he wanted to get out ahead and not get into a bidding war.". I think that's a pretty valid argument.

Another point I want to add here is not to get tribalistic over this. This trade has worked out for the team, and Benning deserves credit for it. I don't think many Canucks fans are upset that Miller is on the team. Instead, they believe that Benning could have made a better deal considering the circumstances. Let's not turn this into something where the two sides (pro-Benning/anti-Benning) draw a line in the sand and yell at each other. There can be a conversation about the risk that was involved in this deal.


This isn't reddit where unpopular opinions get squashed.

You are also assuming that there wasn’t a bitting war on Miller and that paying a 1st round pick wasn’t necessary for JB to win the bit.

we would never know the truth on this but I’m willing to believe that there were more than 1-2 teams trying to acquire JT Miller who has had a good track record

 

[Canucks1096]

We have almost a ppg player right now and is only 2 points behind Petey.

The middle 6 winger label that he had before the season started is officially gone.