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

[F A N]

Miller has been the straw that stirs the drink of the Canucks offense so far this year.

Well done Jim.

You mean JT "Complimentary Player" Miller?

 

[mathonwy]

Miller is a very good player that was a casualty of Tampa having too many very good latter round drafted players and not enough ice time to go around last season.

It's kinda sick how good Tampa's drafting has been past round 1.

Tampa Bay Lightning Draft History at hockeydb.com

He's in his prime.
He just joined a directionless rudderless team.
He's on a sick contract.
The 1RW position is his for the taking.
He's still got a whole lot of fans in New York cheering him on.

My paranoid mind wonders how organic the bidding process was for this player.

Anyone that was paying attention to the Rags a few years ago knows that JT Miller is a good player.

 

[Canucks1096]

I am hoping people now will stop calling Miller a middle 6 winger.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

This aligns nicely with my conspiracy theory that Gudbranson, Eriksson, Pouliot, and Granlund were double agents meant to win the Canucks a lottery. Well, maybe Eriksson was an honest attempt to land a Sedin winger. But what's important is, they're literally all out of the lineup right now and have all been replaced with better players; like you said, flipping a switch. It's the only way you can explain how we can be so incredibly bad in 2017-18 and roll into the '18-19 season with mostly the same team.

remember when gillis sent SOB to nashville to be a double agent? maybe those two foxes aren't so different after all

 

[mathonwy]

This aligns nicely with my conspiracy theory that Gudbranson, Eriksson, Pouliot, and Granlund were double agents meant to win the Canucks a lottery. Well, maybe Eriksson was an honest attempt to land a Sedin winger. But what's important is, they're literally all out of the lineup right now and have all been replaced with better players; like you said, flipping a switch. It's the only way you can explain how we can be so incredibly bad in 2017-18 and roll into the '18-19 season with mostly the same team.

It's the only way to explain a lot of things.

The decision making process of the Canucks over the last 5 years reflects multiple parties having multiple different agendas.

A very major theme, particularly in the earlier and more egregious transactions, is making other teams better at the cost of making the Canucks worse.

Benning facilitated many transactions which made our roster worse and butchered our salary cap.

However, no matter how many stinkers Benning pulled off, it didn't affect his ability to negotiate reasonable contracts with our keeper players and that's where I had the most cognitive dissonance.

You can't be consistently disastrously incompetent at professional scouting but a top pro at signing contracts with specific players.

The real world doesn't work like that.

So.. it's not the real world.

It's the NHL which is fantasy hockey for rich people.

And Jimbo is not a real GM.

 

[WHISTLERNATE]

Miller will be a 50-60 point winger for us. Exactly as hoped, and well worth a 1st round pick.

 

[VanCity Millionaires]

Miller will be a 50-60 point winger for us. Exactly as hoped, and well worth a 1st round pick.

I honestly think 60-70 is more realistic. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just don't see how he doesn't blow past 50 points, barring an injury.

 

[thekernel]

It's the only way to explain a lot of things.

The decision making process of the Canucks over the last 5 years reflects multiple parties having multiple different agendas.

A very major theme, particularly in the earlier and more egregious transactions, is making other teams better at the cost of making the Canucks worse.

Benning facilitated many transactions which made our roster worse and butchered our salary cap.

However, no matter how many stinkers Benning pulled off, it didn't affect his ability to negotiate reasonable contracts with our keeper players and that's where I had the most cognitive dissonance.

You can't be consistently disastrously incompetent at professional scouting but a top pro at signing contracts with specific players.

The real world doesn't work like that.

So.. it's the not real world.

It's the NHL which is fantasy hockey for rich people.

And Jimbo is not a real GM.

I wonder if Benning wanted to rebuild right away but AQ gave him different marching orders. And then when Jim goes "atodaso" AQ actually eats his pride instead of handing out another pink slip. Or maybe they cut a deal that he wouldn't get fired if the re-tool didn't work lol. That would qualify as different agendas....I wonder where Linden's influence falls in all of this I don't think it's a coincidence that Benning started to hit more than miss after Trevor's departure. Even if he's still giving away good picks....I think he checked a crucial box by getting a top 6er in Miller.

 

[WHISTLERNATE]

I honestly think 60-70 is more realistic. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just don't see how he doesn't blow past 50 points, barring an injury.

I don't disagree that Miller getting 60+ is reasonable. He is off to a great start, and looks really good, much better than I was expecting. To me anything over 50 starts to validate the risk in the trade.

 

[MS]

It's the only way to explain a lot of things.

The decision making process of the Canucks over the last 5 years reflects multiple parties having multiple different agendas.

A very major theme, particularly in the earlier and more egregious transactions, is making other teams better at the cost of making the Canucks worse.

Benning facilitated many transactions which made our roster worse and butchered our salary cap.

However, no matter how many stinkers Benning pulled off, it didn't affect his ability to negotiate reasonable contracts with our keeper players and that's where I had the most cognitive dissonance.

You can't be consistently disastrously incompetent at professional scouting but a top pro at signing contracts with specific players.

The real world doesn't work like that.

So.. it's not the real world.

It's the NHL which is fantasy hockey for rich people.

And Jimbo is not a real GM.

Signing RFA contracts is the NHL GM equivalent of putting your pants on in the morning.

Even someone like Weisbrod can look around the league and see what comparable RFAs are signing for. You aren't going to see a Werenski and Konecny and Meier sign for what they did and somehow we give Boeser $10 million, no matter how terrible the management group is.

 

[Bankerguy]

He'll score 60 points this year and people around the league will start to see him as a legit top 6 winger who can play top line (but not carry a top line).

 

[Pip]

Unsurprisingly many are a little too quick to call this trade a home run although I do understand the temptation given how rare it is for a pro acquisition to play well for us. Clearly Miller is/was a decent player, the concern for me was always the cost. Benning and co made 2 assessments with this trade. First that Miller is worth the picks we gave up and also that the Canucks were done missing the playoffs and that Miller (alone with other offseason moves) will push us into being a consistent playoff team. Obviously the early returns are promising but from what I can see Miller (and the Canucks) are due for some regression, shooting-wise at least. It’s best not to draw too many conclusions from the first few games of the season.

That being said I’ve really enjoyed watching Miller and did like the player before we acquired him. He has really stepped up with his linemates having slower starts.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

 

[mathonwy]

Signing RFA contracts is the NHL GM equivalent of putting your pants on in the morning.

Even someone like Weisbrod can look around the league and see what comparable RFAs are signing for. You aren't going to see a Werenski and Konecny and Meier sign for what they did and somehow we give Boeser $10 million, no matter how terrible the management group is.

I don't know enough about the internal workings of RFA contracts to be able to compose an informed response to your statement.

Regardless though, a switch seems to have been flipped as of last season and the number of morale destroying pylons we have in our line up is going down.

I'm not really for or against what's happening. It's just what I see.

More importantly though, seeing this makes it easier for me to enjoy the play of a player like JT Miller or Tyler Myers without having to worry about the fact that it was Jim Benning that signed him.

Jimbo is a muppet and isn't setting the organizational direction of this team.

Just my opinion.

 

[David71]

Miller did get 56 P one year playing with mainly Grabner and Hayes. Playing with Petey and Boeser and on the 1st pp unit, he should get 60 plus points.

I am just hoping he doesn't become injury prone. We saw the script many times, Hamhuis, Ballard, Sutter don't missed many games before they came to Vancouver but became injury prone once they started playing in Vancouver.

dont JINX IT

 

[F A N]

Signing RFA contracts is the NHL GM equivalent of putting your pants on in the morning.

Even someone like Weisbrod can look around the league and see what comparable RFAs are signing for. You aren't going to see a Werenski and Konecny and Meier sign for what they did and somehow we give Boeser $10 million, no matter how terrible the management group is.

Times have changed and that viewpoint you have above is outdated. There's a lot riding on the type of RFA contracts you signed. For example, Colorado could have easily given Rantanen Marner's contract but they didn't.

 

[MS]

Times have changed and that viewpoint you have above is outdated. There's a lot riding on the type of RFA contracts you signed. For example, Colorado could have easily given Rantanen Marner's contract but they didn't.

Someone posted the tax implications of Colorado vs. Toronto a few weeks ago which showed the contracts were basically identical in terms of take-home pay.

And again, even leaving that aside, the 'worst' RFA contract of this offseason in Marner is only $1.5 million different than a 'great' RFA contract for Rantanen. That's not a lot of difference and is a drop in the bucket compared to the blunders we see in UFA. Overpaying a superstar by $1 million isn't really a big deal with an $84 million cap.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Someone posted the tax implications of Colorado vs. Toronto a few weeks ago which showed the contracts were basically identical in terms of take-home pay.

And again, even leaving that aside, the 'worst' RFA contract of this offseason in Marner is only $1.5 million different than a 'great' RFA contract for Rantanen. That's not a lot of difference and is a drop in the bucket compared to the blunders we see in UFA. Overpaying a superstar by $1 million isn't really a big deal with an $84 million cap.

Didn't you say that Boeser's new contract is a disaster if you believe that Boeser is going to be an elite player? If you concede it's possible for an RFA contract to be a disaster depending on contingencies that all GMs consider when negotiating contracts, then I'm not sure why you'd think that negotiating good RFA contracts should be taken for granted. I agree there are fewer pitfalls when you aren't bidding against other teams and operating with an information differential.

 

[Melvin]

Signing RFA contracts is the NHL GM equivalent of putting your pants on in the morning.

Even someone like Weisbrod can look around the league and see what comparable RFAs are signing for. You aren't going to see a Werenski and Konecny and Meier sign for what they did and somehow we give Boeser $10 million, no matter how terrible the management group is.

I wonder if there has ever been a Vancouver rfa signing that the fans thought was bad at the time. These people you're arguing with thought Hutton was a great signing too.

 

[4Twenty]

I honestly think 60-70 is more realistic. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just don't see how he doesn't blow past 50 points, barring an injury.

He's shooting 30%, his career avg is 13%.

That's how it normalizes.

 

[Diamonddog01]

He's shooting 30%, his career avg is 13%.

That's how it normalizes.

True. He's also playing more minutes per game than previous years so I don't think over 50 points is unreasonable.

 

[4Twenty]

I don't disagree that Miller getting 60+ is reasonable. He is off to a great start, and looks really good, much better than I was expecting. To me anything over 50 starts to validate the risk in the trade.

The risk in the trade doesn't really have anything to do with Miller's production levels.

The risk in the trade is that the team is mired as middle tier throughout the 4 years left on the deal, the team has little to no success and when JT Miller is UFA in 4 years at age 30, that 1st rounder is 21 years old on an ELC, on a team that will likely be paying monster salaries to Boeser,Pettersson, Horvat, Hughes and hopefully some others at that stage.

But, I've beaten that to death, if people can't understand that, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince anyone.

I really like the player though and how he looks out there. He's a good add to the group, and definitely looks good with both the top 2 C's on this team.

 

[4Twenty]

True. He's also playing more minutes per game than previous years so I don't think over 50 points is unreasonable.

Oh I don't either, but the 70 point projections seem pretty 6 game sample, shooting% driven. That said, he's racking up points already and Pettersson has yet to really get going, so he could get there, but I wouldn't expect it to continue over the term of his contract.

 

[MS]

I wonder if there has ever been a Vancouver rfa signing that the fans thought was bad at the time. These people you're arguing with thought Hutton was a great signing too.

The huge raises we've given to really marginal players like Sbisa and Vey were questioned by a lot of us here. But generally speaking, no.

Pretty much every RFA signing ever of a quality player by every single team - with the possible exception of Austin Matthews - is considered a 'great deal' by a majority of fans at the time of the signing. Fans are always relieved to see the deal get done and pretty much always can see that the deal is in line with comparable players.

 

[F A N]

Someone posted the tax implications of Colorado vs. Toronto a few weeks ago which showed the contracts were basically identical in terms of take-home pay.

And again, even leaving that aside, the 'worst' RFA contract of this offseason in Marner is only $1.5 million different than a 'great' RFA contract for Rantanen. That's not a lot of difference and is a drop in the bucket compared to the blunders we see in UFA. Overpaying a superstar by $1 million isn't really a big deal with an $84 million cap.

The point is that when it comes to RFAs mistakes can be made as well. It's not as easy as you're suggesting. Take a look at Arizona and Florida. They constantly sign their RFAs long term. Some have worked out. Some have not. I would argue that they should be more careful. Take Brock Boeser. Ya he's a star but is he a superstar? You yourself questioned his future and felt 6 years at $7M was already an overpayment. So the decision whether or not to "overpay" to get a long term deal done should be a harder decision than the equivalent of putting on your pants in the morning (assuming that putting on pants in the morning is easy for you).