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

[F A N]

There aren't many examples because it's extremely rare for a non-playoff team to be stupid enough to trade a future #1 pick. It doesn't happen often, and when it does it usually blows up spectacularly.

What about the time when the Canucks re-acquired Linden?

 

[Bleach Clean]

It's more likely that you end up with a Bennett type player than one of those you listed. So Tampa Bay is taking a chance here, they are more than likely giving up a very good player on a good contract for nothing.

You're basing this projection on what exactly? The 4 years this team has missed the playoffs? Or, the general probability of the draft?

By precedent, when a team misses the playoffs for multiple years, it tends not to trade future 1st rounders, yes or no? If yes, then you have to condemn this trade based upon that logic alone.

By precedent, it is shown to be a rare occurrence. Why? Because it's often thought of as unwise to do. If no, please show data to the contrary.

We don't get to the 'could turn out to be Bennett' part without first acknowledging and accepting the first step in the chain above.

If it's about the probability of the draft, you can follow your logic to its extreme and justify the trading of all picks. It does not hold. The low probability of getting a good player out of the draft in no way devalues draft picks as currency overall. The reason for this is that it is still the best place to accrue future talent. Full stop. Benning has chosen to forgo that route in a desperate attempt to make the playoffs. That is terrible management. Miller or no Miller.

 

[Peter10]

What about the time when the Canucks re-acquired Linden?

You mean that time in November 2001, when they made the playoffs the previous season?

 

[Paradise Circus]

Talking about how we gave up a 1st for Miller has been exhausted. Get over it, it's the past. Are people bringing it up over and over again so they can say "I told you so" if it all goes to shit this season?

Miller looks good, hes a smart player. I'm excited for him and the team this year. A lot to be positive with this team right now, someone always has to look at the dark side of everything. Classic Vancouver mentality.

Should be a great game vs. Philly tonight!

 

[4Twenty]

For a forum that you all seem to hate, you sure do post a lot.

Yup.

And they actually don’t address anything that’s been said. Just a cooked up straw man to rail against.

Personally love the free speech advocacy.

 

[Peter10]

A lot to be positive with this team right now, someone always has to look at the dark side of everything. Classic Vancouver mentality.

Has nothing to do with mentality but rather with incompetent management.

 

[4Twenty]

Talking about how we gave up a 1st for Miller has been exhausted. Get over it, it's the past. Are people bringing it up over and over again so they can say "I told you so" if it all goes to **** this season?

Miller looks good, hes a smart player. I'm excited for him and the team this year. A lot to be positive with this team right now, someone always has to look at the dark side of everything. Classic Vancouver mentality.

Should be a great game vs. Philly tonight!

I expect this post to get a lot of likes.

I find it ironic that 5 months ago is the past and it shouldn’t be discussed anymore....but Gillis still gets brought up near daily and he got fired when my now middle schooler was in grade 1.

J.T. Miller is a good player having a good start. His cost to acquire will be discussed here for the length of his tenure here.

J.T. Miller can have 4 straight 65 point seasons and if the Canucks don’t contend it’ll all be a waste, not sure why that’s so hard to grasp.

His production won’t be what this deal is judged on. If they have no success getting deep in the playoffs in any of the 4 years it’s a waste and we know that success will be hard to come by because of the GM’s cap allocations.

It should be a fun game vs the Flyers. Anyone watch that behind the glass show yet? Makes me miss aV big time.

 

[Paradise Circus]

Has nothing to do with mentality but rather with incompetent management.

Glass half empty perception.

 

[Paradise Circus]

I expect this post to get a lot of likes.

I find it ironic that 5 months ago is the past and it shouldn’t be discussed anymore....but Gillis still gets brought up near daily and he got fired when my now middle schooler was in grade 1.

J.T. Miller is a good player having a good start. His cost to acquire will be discussed here for the length of his tenure here.

J.T. Miller can have 4 straight 65 point seasons and if the Canucks don’t contend it’ll all be a waste, not sure why that’s so hard to grasp.

His production won’t be what this deal is judged on. If they have no success getting deep in the playoffs in any of the 4 years it’s a waste and we know that success will be hard to come by because of the GM’s cap allocations.

It should be a fun game vs the Flyers. Anyone watch that behind the glass show yet? Makes me miss aV big time.

Gillis being brought up all the time is tiresome too.

Haven't seen the glass show yet, will check it out though!

 

[Peter10]

Glass half empty perception.

With Benning the glass isnt even half empty, its not even completely empty, its full of anti-matter.

 

[bandwagonesque]

By precedent, when a team misses the playoffs for multiple years, it tends not to trade future 1st rounders, yes or no? If yes, then you have to condemn this trade based upon that logic alone.

No, it depends on the return. LA traded three 1sts for Gretzky following a 68 point season. I'm not comparing the two players, just pointing out the falsehood that a weak team trading a future 1st is necessarily a bad idea regardless of the return.

 

[Fatass]

With Benning the glass isnt even half empty, its not even completely empty, its full of anti-matter.

In 2021 the Canucks will finally win the draft lottery. Tampa gets our pick though.

 

[Cupless44]

I am not happy with giving up a first round pick, especially where the team is at in the development curve and because Tampa had a real cap problem, it seems that deal could have been made without the first rounder but we know how bad Benning is at negotiating.

However, it is pretty clear Miller is a quality player with size and skill, who might be in for a big season so might not be a bad idea to enjoy it and not harp on the pick for 82 games.

 

[Mergatroidskittle]

Has nothing to do with mentality but rather with incompetent management.

Keep telling yourself that. The delusion that’s taken over here is crazy...

 

[Pavel96]

Keep telling yourself that. The delusion that’s taken over here is crazy...

The team has just been on a horrible stretch, for a long time. And that was partly when they were trying to make it to the playoffs, as they are now. And you think this is all going to work out lol? Keep telling yourself that. The delusion that's taken over some people here is crazy...

 

[Paradise Circus]

This is getting off-topic.

I am not happy with giving up a first round pick, especially where the team is at in the development curve and because Tampa had a real cap problem, it seems that deal could have been made without the first rounder but we know how bad Benning is at negotiating.

However, it is pretty clear Miller is a quality player with size and skill, who might be in for a big season so might not be a bad idea to enjoy it and not harp on the pick for 82 games.

This.

 

[Bleach Clean]

No, it depends on the return. LA traded three 1sts for Gretzky following a 68 point season. I'm not comparing the two players, just pointing out the falsehood that a weak team trading a future 1st is necessarily a bad idea regardless of the return.

What does “it tends not to” mean?

Exceptional cases do not disprove the general rule that bad teams should not trade future 1sts. The return is often not the greatest player in the game.

 

[bandwagonesque]

What does “it tends not to” mean?

This isn't the part of your post I was talking about. You said, "If yes, then you have to condemn this trade based upon that logic alone," i.e., to the exclusion of other aspects of the trade including the return. This clearly isn't true.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This isn't the part of your post I was talking about. You said, "If yes, then you have to condemn this trade based upon that logic alone," i.e., to the exclusion of other aspects of the trade including the return. This clearly isn't true.

No, your base response is still the condemnation of the trade. The probability that such a trade ultimately benefits a bad team is low. After that, you get into the exceptions - which again, do not disprove the general rule.

“It tends not to” is critical in the reading of that statement because it’s a qualifier for exceptions. Read the initial statement again.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Talking about how we gave up a 1st for Miller has been exhausted. Get over it, it's the past. Are people bringing it up over and over again so they can say "I told you so" if it all goes to **** this season?

Miller looks good, hes a smart player. I'm excited for him and the team this year. A lot to be positive with this team right now, someone always has to look at the dark side of everything. Classic Vancouver mentality.

Should be a great game vs. Philly tonight!

Is it “I told you so” when people said it right when the trade happened?

Miller will always be tied to that ridiculous trade return. It’s not, nor will it ever go away.

 

[bandwagonesque]

No, your base response is still the condemnation of the trade. The probability that such a trade ultimately benefits a bad team is low.

That probability depends on another factor, which is what the team trading a first receives in return, ergo it's nonsensical to assign a probability of the team benefitting from the trade in general, across all examples, without considering that factor. I know you're intelligent enough to understand this.

 

[Bleach Clean]

That probability depends on another factor, which is what the team trading a first receives in return, ergo it's nonsensical to assign a probability of the team benefitting from the trade in general, across all examples, without considering that factor. I know you're intelligent enough to understand this.

Probability accounts for that factor, otherwise we would have a probability of 1 when saying all bad teams should not trade future 1st round picks.

Hopefully, you’re intelligent enough to understand this.

 

[Paradise Circus]

Is it “I told you so” when people said it right when the trade happened?

Miller will always be tied to that ridiculous trade return. It’s not, nor will it ever go away.

 

[Hoghandler]

Will definitely echo the positive sentiments on Miller. Never really focused too closely on him before coming to Vancouver, and based on some reports, was expecting a skilled, strong skater with questionable hockey sense and decision making. The skill and skating has come as advertised, but what has been surprising is his excellent hockey sense and strong fundamentals in all 3 zones. The guy just seems to always make the right, high percentage play. The play almost never dies on his stick, he makes a lot happen on breakouts and in the offensive zone and is good at picking up his man when tracking back defensively.

In short, Miller has definitely exceeded my expectations thus far. Maybe best of all, his play-making style should mesh perfectly with the Canucks top 3 centre's. A trio that shoot the puck very well.

 

[Pip]

Definitely nicer that we targeted a quality player, even though we overpaid for him. If we were a true contender I’d honestly be all over this trade.