News Article: The Details Matter to Miller

[superblues]

Found this article today. No real conclusions, but has some nice info.

Stanley Cup is in the Details for Miller (article by Nick Cotsonika via Yahoo Sports)

“We’re a hard team to play for, because it doesn’t come very often. but when it comes, it’s a doozy,” said Blues coach Ken Hitchcock. “You go 11 minutes, no shots on goal, and then it’s a one-timer from [Alex] Ovechkin. It ain’t the quantity, but the quality comes sometimes.”

Hitchcock said he was amazed Miller watched video of every shot on goal minutes after every game, and he volunteered something interesting, considering Miller’s comments. “He never points fingers, he just looks at himself,” Hitchcock said. “Never points a finger. Ever. He pauses and reflects and looks at himself. First he looks at himself, at his own game, and then he looks at how he fits in to the rest of the team game. That’s the part I love about him.”

Click to read more...

 

[Hooliganx3]

Im against it but I really do see us resigning Miller.

 

[Majorityof1]

It's not that I don't see us resigning Miller. More I don't see Miller resigning with us. It is obviously not a good fit for him. We might be dumb enough to ignore that. I doubt Miller will. He can't be happy with how things are going. That said, a deep cup run can change all.

 

[bluemandan]

I love everything I've heard about Miller off the ice.

We didn't get Miller for his off ice tendencies.

 

[JustOneB4IDie]

I'm all in for the Blues re-signing Miller.

 

[TheOrganist]

I'm gonna take a guess that Hooligan and Co. didn't make an appearance on the boards last night after the first period

 

[Hooliganx3]

Still think he's overrated.

 

[Robb_K]

If Miller plays, consistently, like he did last night AFTER period 1, leading The Blues on a long playoff run, I'd like to see him re-signed by The Blues for 2-3 years, but ONLY for $4.5 million or less, per year.

 

[LongLiveTheNote]

If Miller plays, consistently, like he did last night AFTER period 1, leading The Blues on a long playoff run, I'd like to see him re-signed by The Blues for 2-3 years, but ONLY for $4.5 million or less, per year.

This. 1 game does not make a goalie. I agree that he is a good goaltender, but it's all about the price you have to pay in comparison to comparable players. Many factors go into a signing, not just if the player is "good" or not. Length, salary, fit with the team and their long-term plans, etc.

I don't think you could find a poster on here that would be upset if we started the season with Miller next year, ceteris paribus.

 

[jamers]

If Miller plays, consistently, like he did last night AFTER period 1, leading The Blues on a long playoff run, I'd like to see him re-signed by The Blues for 2-3 years, but ONLY for $4.5 million or less, per year.

The problem is that if he does help you guys to a long playoff run (and possibly even if he doesn't), he'll be able to command much more than that on the market. Not saying he's necessarily worth it, but if he resigns, I don't think many of you will like his cap hit.

 

[542365]

Unless he leads us(as in carries us) to a Stanley Cup, I see no reason at all to re-sign him for a huge deal. He's had good games, he's had bad games, he's had terrible games. He's not really any better Halak/Elliott/Allen. No reason to lock him up to a ridiculous deal because we gave up a lot for him. Cut the losses and let him move on. We'll be just fine.

 

[ExJbeck]

If Miller plays, consistently, like he did last night AFTER period 1, leading The Blues on a long playoff run, I'd like to see him re-signed by The Blues for 2-3 years, but ONLY for $4.5 million or less, per year.

He'll walk easily for 4.5. He can get more than that based on reputation alone.

 

[TheOrganist]

Unless he leads us(as in carries us) to a Stanley Cup, I see no reason at all to re-sign him for a huge deal. He's had good games, he's had bad games, he's had terrible games. He's not really any better Halak/Elliott/Allen. No reason to lock him up to a ridiculous deal because we gave up a lot for him. Cut the losses and let him move on. We'll be just fine.

Ya, Halak/Elliott/Allen would've surely shutout the best offense in the league and the defending champs for 4 periods in essentially a make or break playoff game. Good one.

 

[542365]

Ya, Halak/Elliott/Allen would've surely shutout the best offense in the league and the defending champs for 4 periods in essentially a make or break playoff game. Good one.

They certainly could've. Alternatively, they could've made one of the three stops Miller was unable to make in the first period. Either way, it would've been the same result. We've seen the exact same thing from Halak/Elliott for years. We've seen great games, we've seen average games, we've seen bad games. That's exactly what we've seen from Miller. He was brought here to provide consistency that the others lacked, and he hasn't done it. Say what you want about Halak/Elliott, but both of them have had unbelievable games(as in MUCH better than Miller last night) wearing the Note. Again, unless he's the deciding factor in several playoff games, there's no reason to lock him up to the type of contract he's looking for. If he's okay with coming back for a 3 year, 6 million contract, then I'd be fine with signing him. All signs point to him wanting a much longer term deal, and I don't see the need to lock all that money up in a goalie, especially one that hasn't proven to be a significant upgrade.

 

[LongLiveTheNote]

I just don't see how we sign Miller to a big contract, extend guys like Schwartz and Tarasenko, while getting the big scorer that we need. 1 of the 3 can't be done, realistically. I'd rather get the scorer and give the reins over to Elliot/Allen, not to mention allowing Allen more ice time will help him develop, instead of stunting his growth while waiting for multiple years behind Miller. Blues must look at the long-term.

 

[Robb_K]

The problem is that if he does help you guys to a long playoff run (and possibly even if he doesn't), he'll be able to command much more than that on the market. Not saying he's necessarily worth it, but if he resigns, I don't think many of you will like his cap hit.

If he wants $6.5 million a year for 5 years, let him go elsewhere. Allen and Elliott will be fine.

 

[Robb_K]

He'll walk easily for 4.5. He can get more than that based on reputation alone.

I might go to $5 million average, but not more. The Blues have too many salary needs elsewhere, and Miller hasn't proven himself to be better than Elliott or Halak. If he were to turn around after his "discovery game" of his old form, and have a ridiculously fabulous run to The Stanley Cup, stealing games and shutting out high-scoring teams, maybe I'd go to $6.0 average for 3 years, or $5.5 million average for 4 years, but no higher nor longer.

 

[TheOrganist]

They certainly could've. Alternatively, they could've made one of the three stops Miller was unable to make in the first period. Either way, it would've been the same result. We've seen the exact same thing from Halak/Elliott for years. We've seen great games, we've seen average games, we've seen bad games. That's exactly what we've seen from Miller. He was brought here to provide consistency that the others lacked, and he hasn't done it. Say what you want about Halak/Elliott, but both of them have had unbelievable games(as in MUCH better than Miller last night) wearing the Note. Again, unless he's the deciding factor in several playoff games, there's no reason to lock him up to the type of contract he's looking for. If he's okay with coming back for a 3 year, 6 million contract, then I'd be fine with signing him. All signs point to him wanting a much longer term deal, and I don't see the need to lock all that money up in a goalie, especially one that hasn't proven to be a significant upgrade.

The contractual aspect and Allen's ascent is completely separate from your primary point where you insinuated that the Blues would've won Game 1 with one of the aforementioned trio in net as opposed to Miller. Using the regular season as your guide is extremely weak. What Miller did or didn't do when the Blues were a de factor AHL team is the definition of irrelevant. He was brought here to elevate the goaltending position to a level that it hasn't been in the recent past when it mattered most. And he did exactly that in Game 1. There's no reason to believe that any of Halak/Elliott/Allen were remotely capable of shutting out Chicago for four periods. None. I actually made this point about 3 months ago during the heart of the Miller debates while trying to assess Army's mindset. You can bet your *** that the notion that the Blues were going to have to go through Chicago come playoff time was front and center in January and February when management got down to crunch time in regards to the pro's and con's of acquiring Miller. You saw why last night.

 

[542365]

The contractual aspect and Allen's ascent is completely separate from your primary point where you insinuated that the Blues would've won Game 1 with one of the aforementioned trio in net as opposed to Miller. Using the regular season as your guide is extremely weak. What Miller did or didn't do when the Blues were a de factor AHL team is the definition of irrelevant. He was brought here to elevate the goaltending position to a level that it hasn't been in the recent past when it mattered most. And he did exactly that in Game 1. There's no reason to believe that any of Halak/Elliott/Allen were remotely capable of shutting out Chicago for four periods. None. I actually made this point about 3 months ago during the heart of the Miller debates while trying to assess Army's mindset. You can bet your *** that the notion that the Blues were going to have to go through Chicago come playoff time was front and center in January and February when management got down to crunch time in regards to the pro's and con's of acquiring Miller. You saw why last night.

The Blues would've won game one with either Halak or Elliott in net for game 1. Both guys beat the Hawks throughout the regular season(because that's all we have to go on because nobody from either team was on the team the last time these two met in the playoffs) and both guys have proven their ability in the playoffs. Miller is not much of an upgrade. His best games are better than just about anyone in the NHL, but we don't see his best all that often(or we haven't thus far). More often, we see his average/okay games where he is no better than Jaro/Ells average game. There's no reason to give him a huge deal because he can occasionally have unbelievable game unless(like I said earlier) he has an unbelievable playoff run. Even with a great playoff run, I'd be just fine letting him walk if he wants more than 4 years(or trading his rights before the draft). I'd rather spend the money elsewhere because he's not a huge upgrade. He's an upgrade, but not nearly enough to demand the kind of money he's been rumored to be searching for. Use the money for something else.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

As the series goes on, if the opposition is getting frustrated with Miller, I think that's a good indicator that he's doing something neither Halak (who never really had a chance due to injuries) nor Elliott were able to accomplish in the postseason.

 

[Alklha]

I don't know why people are talking in absolutes, nobody knows what Halák or Elliott would have done the other night. Suggesting that there is no chance either would have shut them out for 4 periods and ignoring the first period just makes no sense. Over the entire game Miller was very good. But that first period was still 2 minutes away from costing us the game. Spin it whatever way you want, it was just 1 game.

If Miller comes up big and we progress, then there can be no real argument that he isn't an upgrade on Halák or Elliott. Basing it on 1 game, while saying that Elliott and Halák wouldn't be capable of doing that in 1 game, is just insanity. And easy to disprove.

I just don't see how we sign Miller to a big contract, extend guys like Schwartz and Tarasenko, while getting the big scorer that we need. 1 of the 3 can't be done, realistically. I'd rather get the scorer and give the reins over to Elliot/Allen, not to mention allowing Allen more ice time will help him develop, instead of stunting his growth while waiting for multiple years behind Miller. Blues must look at the long-term.

None of us have any idea what our budget is going forward. If we can spend to the cap next season, we can absolutely afford to do all 3.

 

[TheOrganist]

Sure, it is one game, and I am getting a little carried away as a supporter of the trade, but how is it easy to disprove? The last time a Blues goaltender made 35 saves or more in a shutout (which is the amount of saves Miller made after the Kane goal) was February 25, 2011. And it was Bishop who did that, ironically enough. (And yes, the first goal was weak but the 2nd goal was abysmal penalty killing with the entire unit puck watching Versteeg and the 3rd goal was unacceptable defensive awareness).

I just think this series will be the perfect barometer to potentially vindicate Armstrong's beliefs. Namely that the goaltending was the weakest aspect of the team at the deadline (the Blues will not face a better offense) and that the Blues' offense, when healthy, was much better than previous playoff editions and didn't need to be upgraded.

 

[Alklha]

Sure, it is one game, and I am getting a little carried away as a supporter of the trade, but how is it easy to disprove? The last time a Blues goaltender made 35 saves or more in a shutout (which is the amount of saves Miller made after the Kane goal) was February 25, 2011. And it was Bishop who did that, ironically enough. (And yes, the first goal was weak but the 2nd goal was abysmal penalty killing with the entire unit puck watching Versteeg and the 3rd goal was unacceptable defensive awareness).

I just think this series will be the perfect barometer to potentially vindicate Armstrong's beliefs. Namely that the goaltending was the weakest aspect of the team at the deadline (the Blues will not face a better offense) and that the Blues' offense, when healthy, was much better than previous playoff editions and didn't need to be upgraded.

Except it wasn't a shutout and he gave up 3 goals, and just because Miller gave up those goals doesn't mean every other goalie would have. How is it easy to disprove?

Elliott lost 1 goal in 75 minutes against the reigning Stanley Cup Champions in last seasons playoffs (hell, he only gave up 3 goals in the first 3 games). Halák shutdown a far superior offensive team in the playoffs 4 years ago in multiple games. There can be absolutely no argument that Elliott and Halák would have been capable of getting the win on Thursday, nobody knows if they actually would have done it.

As I said, if Miller leads us past the Blackhawks then he has proven his worth. He was brought he to be a difference maker in the playoffs, and by getting us past Chicago he would do something that Elliott and Halák haven't managed in getting us past a decent team ('12 Sharks just weren't very good).

There isn't a goalie in the League that isn't capable of standing on his head for 80 minutes, let's see if we've finally got one that can stretch it out for a couple of months.

 

[Hooliganx3]

Some fans are just delusional and will only see what they want to see. Yes Miller played well after the first period. They seem to forget he gave up 3 goals in the 1st period. Elliott averaged giving up less than 2 goals a game last season in the playoffs and we still lost.

Even if we win the series I don't think the Miller trade is in anyway proven to be a wise one. Our offense if better with Schwartz and Tarasenko's development. We are facing Crawford possibly the weakest playoff goalie in our conference.

If Miller starts to give up less than 2 goals a game you can make a case. That being said Halak still had that amazing run in MTL to the conference finals. He has proven he is capable of stealing games/Series as well.

People only seem to point out the positives of Miller ignore his negatives. With Halak they only see the negatives and forget he has shut other teams out more often than Miller did in the past 3 seasons.

 

[FamilyGuy716]

I think/hope Miller will steal a game for you before this series is over. He's going to play lights out in game 3 or 4. He always did it for us when we were in the playoffs.