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

[Billy Kvcmu]

Edmonton has 2 even higher end superstars for years. Do you think they had enough already to be a cup contender?

I think Miller the player has exceeded my expectations, so good job by Benneing here. Its still early but I was expecting a complimentary top 6 player, instead hes been a line-driver. Definitely a rare hit by the pro scout, I have no problem admitting this.
But Miller the trade is still to be determined. If it ended up costing us a top 5 overall pick in 2021, I'll have to say that the trade still ended up being a bad move for the franchise. If the pick ended up being 15 overall or beyond then I think its a good move.

That's a legit wait and see take

But, I think everyone here deserves to at least enjoy this player for now

 

[Didalee Hed]

Sweet play by miller yesterday to be expecting a pass up on his forehand then adjusting to take it on his backhand from around his back.

 

[Jay Cee]

Um err...It was a bad trade at the time. Amirite? They couldn't possibly see it like this. So it was not so good.

If we frame things the right way we can never be wrong.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Superstars don’t make cup contenders, quality depth does. How many superstars did STL have last year?

Then I'm not sure what point you are making with the earlier post? Are you saying we have 2 superstars already, we don't need more because St Louis had same/less? Are you saying Edmonton sucked for so many years because they had too many? Is 2 too many or just right?

 

[bandwagonesque]

I wouldn’t say he’s performed ‘exactly’ as expected but the difference isn’t as big as is being claimed.

This is patently untrue. Opinion after the trade ranged from good 2nd line winger to your own pronouncement -- a cap dump and a decent middle six winger. Instead he's tied for 15th in the league in scoring, dominating on the power play, and scoring at a first line rate at even strength.

 

[MS]

This is patently untrue. Opinion after the trade ranged from good 2nd line winger to your own pronouncement -- a cap dump and a decent middle six winger. Instead he's tied for 15th in the league in scoring, dominating on the power play, and scoring at a first line rate at even strength.

I repeatedly said he’d be a good fit with Pettersson, projected 55 points, and said he was a fine player and the (excluding the cost) by far the best player ever brought in by this regime.

He’s basically been exactly what I expected at ES, but his insane PP production has been a surprise. And probably isn’t sustainable. Like, Sidney Crosby had 29 PP points last year in a 100-point season. Miller is currently on pace for 36.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I repeatedly said he’d be a good fit with Pettersson, projected 55 points, and said he was a fine player and the (excluding the cost) by far the best player ever brought in by this regime.

You were hedging your bets, as you tend to do judiciously with every prediction you make. You initially called him a basically a cap dump and a decent middle-six player.

He’s basically been exactly what I expected at ES, but his insane PP production has been a surprise. And probably isn’t sustainable. Like, Sidney Crosby had 29 PP points last year in a 100-point season. Miller is currently on pace for 36.

You looked through power-play production statistics and deliberately cherrypicked the player with the best statistics overall who scored the fewest points on the power play. 14 players scored more PP points than Crosby. I agree the production isn't sustainable, but that isn't the question I brought up which you were addressing. I wasn't even talking about a prediction you had made until you brought it up. It's whether his performance and production so far is anywhere close to what it was predicted to be, and I'm only even debating this point because someone claimed it was when it obviously isn't.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Since you like to focus on the "process" so much rather than the "result" which is the more important part.
How about those New Jersey Devils? Adding Gusev, Subban and even Simmon in the offseason for relatively cheap price, the "process" was praised by the majority people, unfortunately the "result" now is a complete failure.

Gusev is underwhelming, Simmon is replaceable and Subban is just a big dud (with an ugly contract too), but since the "process" was very logical and low risk, I assume you would still rather added Gusev/Subban than Miller in the summer?

I brought up the Devils up because I remember a lot of people were complaining about that they would rather traded a 2nd+3rd for a magic bean like Gusev than a proven nhl scorer in Miller

I didn't make that argument (about the Devils), but I understand the logic behind it. If you're a team that has missed the playoffs for 4 straight years (VAN), and have had the worst record over that span, probably not a good idea to trade your best future asset. Agreed? Better to be conservative and deal depth futures for a player that may have great upside (NJ).

Anyway, it's about process and result. It's both, and it's a balance. A stupid move could yield a good result. A seemingly good move could yield a bad result. In order to judge the trade overall, I believe you should evaluate the beginning given the information at the time. Then, evaluate the end given an appropriate sample. Finally, balance the two to come to a determination. Do you think 2 months is a sufficient sample?

Now, regardless of the strawmen rhetoric or the weak arguments for Benning listed here, with the same backers present (I know you're not of that ilk), that initial read on the deal doesn't change. Miller was a 52~ point forward that was cap-squeezed out of TBay. Benning gave up a future 1st rounder for him knowing that his team had been in the basement for 4 years. That's why this deal was criticized, both here and in the media/twitter. Completely fair.

If we accrue a large enough sample where Miller has proven to be a PPG~ player. Stabilized at this number, then perceptions on the overall balance of that trade will begin to change. But realize, they will begin to change to the positive because the initial perception was so negative. A negative process first followed by a potentially great result.

 

[Diamonddog01]

You were hedging your bets, as you tend to do judiciously with every prediction you make. You initially called him a basically a cap dump and a decent middle-six player.

By now you should know he does that each and every time, with every prediction and player.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I repeatedly said he’d be a good fit with Pettersson, projected 55 points, and said he was a fine player and the (excluding the cost) by far the best player ever brought in by this regime.

He’s basically been exactly what I expected at ES, but his insane PP production has been a surprise. And probably isn’t sustainable. Like, Sidney Crosby had 29 PP points last year in a 100-point season. Miller is currently on pace for 36.

You are wasting your time.

Bandwagon isn't saying that it is sustainable either. That's the trick in his word usage. He's saying that Miller's current production has increased... And these people predicted it wrong (lists offseason predictions). It isn't close! This is somehow supposed to make them appear to be wrong, knowing that the sample isn't large enough for his rate to settle in any significant sense.

Bandwagon is saying nothing at all of significance. I believe you are wasting your time in this discussion. YMMV.

 

[Bleach Clean]

By now you should know he does that each and every time, with every prediction and player.

And he's proven to be right far more often than not for doing so. I'll take MS's projection rate over that of many people on this board, including yourself DDog. No question about it.

 

[Laterade]

JT Miller is good at hockey

 

[bandwagonesque]

You are wasting your time.

Bandwagon isn't saying that it is sustainable either. That's the trick in his word usage. He's saying that Miller's current production has increased... And these people predicted it wrong (lists offseason predictions). It isn't close! This is somehow supposed to make them appear to be wrong, knowing that the sample isn't large enough for his rate to settle in any significant sense.

None of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about. I said exactly one thing -- that @Melvin's statement that Miller's production is exactly as expected is false. I brought up the old predictions expressly not to criticize them or anyone who made them, or to suggest they weren't sensible at the time, or that my prediction would have been any more accurate had I made one. I brought them up simply to note that they had been made and proved to be inaccurate so far, which Melvin was denying. You know this, and you know that I'm not actually doing any of the things you just mentioned. You're deliberately misrepresenting what posters are saying because you disagree with them in general.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

I didn't make that argument (about the Devils), but I understand the logic behind it. If you're a team that has missed the playoffs for 4 straight years (VAN), and have had the worst record over that span, probably not a good idea to trade your best future asset. Agreed? Better to be conservative and deal depth futures for a player that may have great upside (NJ).

Anyway, it's about process and result. It's both, and it's a balance. A stupid move could yield a good result. A seemingly good move could yield a bad result. In order to judge the trade overall, I believe you should evaluate the beginning given the information at the time. Then, evaluate the end given an appropriate sample. Finally, balance the two to come to a determination. Do you think 2 months is a sufficient sample?

Now, regardless of the strawmen rhetoric or the weak arguments for Benning listed here, with the same backers present (I know you're not of that ilk), that initial read on the deal doesn't change. Miller was a 52~ point forward that was cap-squeezed out of TBay. Benning gave up a future 1st rounder for him knowing that his team had been in the basement for 4 years. That's why this deal was criticized, both here and in the media/twitter. Completely fair.

If we accrue a large enough sample where Miller has proven to be a PPG~ player. Stabilized at this number, then perceptions on the overall balance of that trade will begin to change. But realize, they will begin to change to the positive because the initial perception was so negative. A negative process first followed by a potentially great result.

okay then, wait and see

 

[Bleach Clean]

None of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about. I said exactly one thing -- that @Melvin's statement that Miller's production is exactly as expected is false. I brought up the old predictions expressly not to criticize them or anyone who made them, or to suggest they weren't sensible at the time, or that my prediction would have been any more accurate had I made one. I brought them up simply to note that they had been made and proved to be inaccurate so far, which Melvin was denying. You know this, and you know that I'm not actually doing any of the things you just mentioned. You're deliberately misrepresenting what posters are saying because you disagree with them in general.

There is no misrepresentation when others are interpreting your phrasing in the same way. Perhaps present a more concise argument, and significant evidence, so as to avoid its misinterpretation?

The key component of this is that early predictions, based upon a 321 game sample, have NOT been proven to be inaccurate. In order for that to happen, you would have to contest that his new PPG is sustainable, which you haven’t done. Surprisingly *heavy sarcasm*.

Basically, there’s no regression in your faulty analysis. There’s no predictive value. And without that value, your statement is absolutely meaningless. It’s akin to saying “I saw him tear it up in October that one time”.

And so, do you see why some people including myself do not take your position seriously? Some will not even respond to it. Melvin is better at this than I am, but hey, I’m working on it.

 

[Bleach Clean]

okay then, wait and see

Fair enough. Just to confirm, you did not see the deal itself as bad right? Did you think it was a good trade when it was made?

I ask because it’s going to take a lot less for you to think it was great overall if you thought it was good from the outset.

 

[bandwagonesque]

There is no misrepresentation when others are interpreting your phrasing in the same way. Perhaps present a more concise argument, and significant evidence, so as to avoid its misinterpretation?

The key component of this is that early predictions, based upon a 321 game sample, have NOT been proven to be inaccurate. In order for that to happen, you would have to contest that his new PPG is sustainable, which you haven’t done. Surprisingly *heavy sarcasm*.

Basically, there’s no regression in your faulty analysis. There’s no predictive value. And without that value, your statement is absolutely meaningless. It’s akin to saying “I saw him tear it up in October that one time”.

And so, do you see why some people including myself do not take your position seriously? Some will not even respond to it. Melvin is better at this than I am, but hey, I’m working on it.

Again, none of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about and mostly consists of appeals to consensus. I haven't made any claim about which predictions may be accurate in the long run, although I suspect Miller will continue to be a 1st line forward in his current role and deployment. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm making a single, simple claim -- that Miller's performance so far is not what was predicted. I'm only bothering to make it because another poster claimed it is what was predicted. This claim obviously isn't true, and you know this. When you claim not to understand this or that I'm actually talking about something else or making predictions of my own, you're deliberately lying. [MOD]

 

[Bleach Clean]

Again, none of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about and mostly consists of appeals to consensus. I'm making a single, simple claim -- that Miller's performance so far is not what was predicted. I'm making it because another poster claimed it is what was predicted. This claim obviously isn't true. When you claim not to understand this or that I'm actually talking about something else or making predictions of my own, you're deliberately lying. [MOD].

You still don’t understand that his performance lacks sufficient sample to be proven one way or the other, do you?

At best, you have anecdotal evidence that has no predictive value. Let’s test it shall we? Are you saying that Miller is no longer the 52~ point forward his 321 game sample shows him to be? Yes or no?

If yes, prove this by proving that it is sustainable. If not, then your statement lacks any value.

 

[Bleach Clean]

None of this is related to the claim I'm making in any way.

Your claim is that JT Miller’s performance defies the predictions you cited. This is wrong. You’re not saying he is now a PPG player. This directly assaults your porous claim. Over to you.

Edit: And we’ll end it on that ad hominem bandwagon. Thank you for your time.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Your claim is that JT Miller’s performance defies the predictions you cited. This is wrong. This directly assaults your porous claim. Over to you.

Edit: And we’ll end it on that ad hominem bandwagon. Thank you for your time.

Add it to your collection.

 

[Raistlin]

I remember the Hawks really started going after they signed Hossa, Miller could be that guy for us. Frankly he's exactly what we needed. Just hope he keeps the consistency of his first 30 games.

 

[SurferBroChad]

I remember the Hawks really started going after they signed Hossa, Miller could be that guy for us. Frankly he's exactly what we needed. Just hope he keeps the consistency of his first 30 games.

yeah ive been waiting for a big dip, rangers/tampa fans say he has giant dry spells but he was young and players learn how to be more consistent.

i agree the sample size is far too small to say what he's doing now is the JT Miller we will see night in and night out in a canucks jersey, but as of right now its hard to argue against this trade. obviously the best thing to do is wait a few years and see how it all pans out.

mods close thread please. thanks!

 

[I am toxic]

Wait and see!

And close the thread!

 

[vancityluongo]

Edmonton has 2 even higher end superstars for years. Do you think they had enough already to be a cup contender?

I think Miller the player has exceeded my expectations, so good job by Benneing here. Its still early but I was expecting a complimentary top 6 player, instead hes been a line-driver. Definitely a rare hit by the pro scout, I have no problem admitting this.
But Miller the trade is still to be determined. If it ended up costing us a top 5 overall pick in 2021, I'll have to say that the trade still ended up being a bad move for the franchise. If the pick ended up being 15 overall or beyond then I think its a good move.

Yup. I'm happy to take an L on my JT Miller prediction. The gloaters should maybe remember being wrong on like, a dozen other transactions before trying to dunk too hard though.

Ultimately I want to see the Canucks do well, like 99% of the people on this board, so happy to see Miller has been playing so well. If this is a new page for Jim Benning's pro scouting department (no one saw the sudden improvement in Gillis' amateur scouting department coming, but it did in 2013), then that's terrific.

At the same time - this is a trade that needs to be assessed over two years and in many ways, always has been. In finance terms, this is a contingent NPV scenario. The net present value of trading an average (until proven otherwise) first round pick for JT Miller is highly positive. But that is contingent on the pick not being in the lottery (huge negative NPV), over either of the two seasons, which is dependent on the team Benning builds around him for the rest of the season and next year (the third factor in the NPV assessment).

However, imagine JT hits 80 points this season and next, but the Canucks miss the playoffs next year and that pick becomes a first overall and a franchise player - not a Nolan Patrick. Given the low likelihood of that all happening (and it is probably similar to the likelihood that a 20th overall pick becomes a franchise player... ie. very, very low), the trade is a win, and to say otherwise is hindsight (because it would take 5+ years to assess). So absolute performance can very well dictate if this is a good move or not (higher NPV on Miller than anything we can possibly attribute as negative on the pick/Benning), and right now, Miller is tracking well.

 

[F A N]

his insane PP production has been a surprise. And probably isn’t sustainable. Like, Sidney Crosby had 29 PP points last year in a 100-point season. Miller is currently on pace for 36.

Kessel had 36 PPP last season.

Anyhow, if Miller is "just" a 22 goal 56+ point top 6 winger with strong two-way numbers, that's a very good player. When we had Bonino we talked about Bonino's contract value. We have Miller as a 26 year old on a 4 year deal at $5.25M AAV with zero trade protection. That's good value for a 22 goal 56+ point player with Miller's two-way effectiveness.