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

[Billy Kvcmu]

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.

I’m sorry but who else that we drafted in 2013 other than Horvat is currently playing in the NHL???

Other than that I agree with the rest of your post, just want to add that isn’t 2021 suppose to be a weak draft?

 

[UK Canuck]

I’m sorry but who else that we drafted in 2013 other than Horvat is currently playing in the NHL???

Other than that I agree with the rest of your post, just want to add that isn’t 2021 suppose to be a weak draft?

looks like there's quite a few very good D prospects + Aatu Raty, its nowhere near as deep as 2020 though

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong here vancityluongo, but if this trade is contingent on negative NPV (lottery pick) being compared to positive NPV (JT's performance), then JT's absolute performance alone cannot dictate the perception of this deal, correct?

If that is correct, the fulcrum of this deal is still the playoffs. If JT gets 80 points and they still miss, then the deal will be criticized because that is the wager Benning is making. He's front-loading assets in order to win now. If he doesn't win now, then he has failed. He has either assessed his team poorly, again. Or, he has judged the present and future value of the pick poorly. Make sense?

This deal hinges upon making the playoffs, IMO. JT is supposed to help get them there. Let's see if it works out?

 

[Melvin]

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.

A lot depends on where this team actually is, which is going to take some time to sort out. There's no really getting around it or being able to jump the gun here.

If JT continues his pace and the Canucks squeak into the playoffs once before falling back into the gutter like the Oilers in 2017, I think you'd still have to say it was a poor decision. A mid round first is decent value for 4 seasons of Miller but the timing is off if the goal is, as it should, to build a team that can be consistently competitive.

The Miller trade is the team going all in for this year at the expense of future seasons, which I still think is poor strategy as I think next year's team is in a bad position to compete. What kind of a season Miller has this year is almost irrelevant (unless it pushes the canucks to legit contender status.)

The criticism of this trade is in its myopia, so it's nonsensical to invalidate that criticism based on early returns.

I always said this was a good trade based on the value. That was never the point.

 

[UK Canuck]

A lot depends on where this team actually is, which is going to take some time to sort out. There's no really getting around it or being able to jump the gun here.

If JT continues his pace and the Canucks squeak into the playoffs once before falling back into the gutter like the Oilers in 2017, I think you'd still have to say it was a poor decision. A mid round first is decent value for 4 seasons of Miller but the timing is off if the goal is, as it should, to build a team that can be consistently competitive.

The Miller trade is the team going all in for this year at the expense of future seasons, which I still think is poor strategy as I think next year's team is in a bad position to compete. What kind of a season Miller has this year is almost irrelevant (unless it pushes the canucks to legit contender status.)

The criticism of this trade is in its myopia, so it's nonsensical to invalidate that criticism based on early returns.

I always said this was a good trade based on the value. That was never the point.

yeah, I kinda feel similar, I'm massively worried about the future of the defence outside of Hughes given the prospect pool and the likelihood of being in a position to draft another elite defensive prospect, we've basically got to hope on every single one of Juolevi, Rathbone & Woo to become their absolute best case scenario in terms of ceiling, which doesnt seem overly likely

 

[Melvin]

yeah, I kinda feel similar, I'm massively worried about the future of the defence outside of Hughes given the prospect pool and the likelihood of being in a position to draft another elite defensive prospect, we've basically got to hope on every single one of Juolevi, Rathbone & Woo to become their absolute best case scenario in terms of ceiling, which doesnt seem overly likely

If we make the playoffs this year it means that we are going into next season with no Tanev under contract, no Markstrom under contract, nothing in Utica and no 1st round pick. Is that really a good position to be in?

Benning has somehow lowered the bar so far that we are supposed to celebrate a singular playoff berth as if it is the championship itself.

Let's wait and see what happens.

 

[vancityluongo]

Correct me if I'm wrong here vancityluongo, but if this trade is contingent on negative NPV (lottery pick) being compared to positive NPV (JT's performance), then JT's absolute performance alone cannot dictate the perception of this deal, correct?

If that is correct, the fulcrum of this deal is still the playoffs. If JT gets 80 points and they still miss, then the deal will be criticized because that is the wager Benning is making. He's front-loading assets in order to win now. If he doesn't win now, then he has failed. He has either assessed his team poorly, again. Or, he has judged the present and future value of the pick poorly. Make sense?

This deal hinges upon making the playoffs, IMO. JT is supposed to help get them there. Let's see if it works out?

The entire premise of what I'm getting at is that at some point, performance would dictate the balance of the overall NPV. To stretch it to the extreme, even if we knew for certain that the pick would be the 2021 1st overall, if Miller was a 100 point player over the next four seasons, it doesn't matter. There is almost no chance that the NPV of that 1st overall, even with the additional contingency of "is this team good during this window?" outweighs the monstrous individual performance.

And given that in reality, in the *worst* case scenario, there is a ~18% chance of a last place 1st rounder being first overall (and then considering that not all first overalls are franchise players, let alone consistent 100 point players), the positive NPV from a 100 point JT Miller outweighs the negative, risk-adjusted NPV factors.

Just as the opposite is true. If Miller was a 35-40 point middling, Tanner Pearson level winger, or worse, the trade would be atrocious; even if Jim Benning pulled some voodoo shit and managed to make the playoffs in 2020 and win the Cup in 2021 with the player going to Tampa at 31st overall in 2021 never playing an NHL game. So in that sense, JT's absolute performance dictates the outcome, because that is the singular factor we are constantly assessing. What the organization does aside from that is absolutely important, but not when we're looking at this in a vacuum - the execution given the strategy. It's a different discussion on whether this type of move makes sense given where the organization is. For another example, the infamous age gap strategy may have actually made sense in 2014; but targetting Linden Vey was a terrible implementation of that goal.

So outside of these stretched scenarios, it is only in the median situation, where the player performs as "expected" - in the 50-60 point range - that the final factor of, "is this team taking the next step into consistently being in the playoffs" gets significantly amplified IMO. That's where you're executing as expected, based on the desired outcome; so the question singularly becomes "are we achieving the outcome"? But right now, with Miller performing above that, it matters less when just assessing this trade.

 

[vancityluongo]

A lot depends on where this team actually is, which is going to take some time to sort out. There's no really getting around it or being able to jump the gun here.

If JT continues his pace and the Canucks squeak into the playoffs once before falling back into the gutter like the Oilers in 2017, I think you'd still have to say it was a poor decision. A mid round first is decent value for 4 seasons of Miller but the timing is off if the goal is, as it should, to build a team that can be consistently competitive.

The Miller trade is the team going all in for this year at the expense of future seasons, which I still think is poor strategy as I think next year's team is in a bad position to compete. What kind of a season Miller has this year is almost irrelevant (unless it pushes the canucks to legit contender status.)

The criticism of this trade is in its myopia, so it's nonsensical to invalidate that criticism based on early returns.

I always said this was a good trade based on the value. That was never the point.

I agree that it cannot be declared either way at this point. Just suggesting that it is fair enough to suggest that the outcome is currently tracking okay, and better than it was on the day of the trade.

Disagree that at no point could this be a good trade independent of team outcomes, as I attempted to illustrate above.

 

[Melvin]

I agree that it cannot be declared either way at this point. Just suggesting that it is fair enough to suggest that the outcome is currently tracking okay, and better than it was on the day of the trade.

Disagree that at no point could this be a good trade independent of team outcomes, as I attempted to illustrate above.

I disagree.

If Miller becomes a 100 point monster for all four seasons but we continue to stink, I'd argue that it was still bad decision making since all his performance did over that time was hurt our lottery outcomes.

Miller must be a top contributor to a contending team at some point over his contract for this to be a smart decision.
I don't care if he puts up 1000 points; that still needs to be true.

The conditions on this pick does save it somewhat. If we miss the playoffs this year and have a lottery pick, things actually look better for next year with Miller in the fold.

I actually think ironically that the worst thing (all things considered) might be for the team to squeak in this year.

 

[F A N]

If we make the playoffs this year it means that we are going into next season with no Tanev under contract, no Markstrom under contract, nothing in Utica and no 1st round pick. Is that really a good position to be in?

Benning has somehow lowered the bar so far that we are supposed to celebrate a singular playoff berth as if it is the championship itself.

Let's wait and see what happens.

What does making the playoffs have to do with Tanev and Markstrom's contract status going forward? I would think if we do make the playoffs this season the odds are higher that one of the two are re-signed (whether that's a good thing or not is a separate issue).

 

[Melvin]

If you go back to the offseason and all of the discussion about this trade (and I was generally on the defending side,) at no point did anyone say "well if he's a 60 pt player then it's a bad trade, but if he's an 80 pt player then it's a good trade!" nobody said this because it's stupid, makes no sense and misses the point of everything.

 

[F A N]

A lot depends on where this team actually is, which is going to take some time to sort out. There's no really getting around it or being able to jump the gun here.

If JT continues his pace and the Canucks squeak into the playoffs once before falling back into the gutter like the Oilers in 2017, I think you'd still have to say it was a poor decision. A mid round first is decent value for 4 seasons of Miller but the timing is off if the goal is, as it should, to build a team that can be consistently competitive.

The Miller trade is the team going all in for this year at the expense of future seasons, which I still think is poor strategy as I think next year's team is in a bad position to compete. What kind of a season Miller has this year is almost irrelevant (unless it pushes the canucks to legit contender status.)

The criticism of this trade is in its myopia, so it's nonsensical to invalidate that criticism based on early returns.

I always said this was a good trade based on the value. That was never the point.

The whole timing argument is a flawed one. Like you said, it's a good trade based on value and you're getting a 26 year old forward who should be in his prime. If the Canucks can squeek into the playoffs with Miller it means that they should be adding a player like Miller. Keep in mind that that first round pick is protected for a year. The Canucks could conceivably add another top 10 pick over the summer and have a 27 year old Miller with 3 years left on his contract with no NTC and a good cap hit.

The goal is to be consistently competitive and in order to be consistently competitive you have to have players in place on the team and not just in the system. Bo Horvat will be a UFA at the end of his contract which is the same length as that of Miller's. There's no guarantee that he will re-sign and few teams win the Cup without experiencing some playoff failure. The Jets are a good example of a team that wasted the talents of their old core and had to retool before they did anything besides looking like a contender for one year.

It seems more effective to have your core players in place and try to make a couple of runs with them. Trying to build a team with one long window of contention is very difficult to do.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

What do we have in J.T. Miller?

Arguably the best winger on the team. Miller is an excellent player and this will be a great trade IF it helps make the Canucks a playoff team.

 

[vancityluongo]

I actually think ironically that the worst thing (all things considered) might be for the team to squeak in this year.

Agreed.

I disagree.

If Miller becomes a 100 point monster for all four seasons but we continue to stink, I'd argue that it was still bad decision making since all his performance did over that time was hurt our lottery outcomes.

Miller must be a top contributor to a contending team at some point over his contract for this to be a smart decision.
I don't care if he puts up 1000 points; that still needs to be true.

But contrast that with the opposite scenario - the team is wildly successful, and JT Miller is a 30-40 point cog in a suddenly well oiled machine. That's a terrible trade, because the value proposition is off, even if the timing in theory looks great.

There has to be a point where the execution of this trade is inherently successful, even if it doesn't match the strategy - in this case, make the playoffs / contend. Again, just as the opposite is true - the age gap strategy made some sense at the time, but the execution (Linden Vey, Markus Granlund, Emerson Etem) was so terrible that it didn't matter if they had the right process.

 

[Melvin]

Agreed.



But contrast that with the opposite scenario - the team is wildly successful, and JT Miller is a 30-40 point cog in a suddenly well oiled machine. That's a terrible trade, because the value proposition is off, even if the timing in theory looks great.

There has to be a point where the execution of this trade is inherently successful, even if it doesn't match the strategy - in this case, make the playoffs / contend.

What's your point here? Why does it need to work both ways?

The only thing that actually matters is contending. If the team isn't in a position to contend even with SuperMiller, then it's irrelevant. The trade was a waste.

Conversely, if the team contends despite Miller being Eriksson redux, then it's a bad trade because the target was bad.

A good grade needs to have both elements. A good target and the right timing. If either one of these elements is off then it's not a good trade.

Most of Benning's trades have had neither, of course. A bad trade with bad timing. So we are used to seeing both elements of the trade be a failure. In this case, it's clear that he made a good target for once. But was it the right time to cash in a first? That still needs to be answered absolutely irrespective of miller's individual performance.

If I pay $50 for a loaf of bread it's a bad deal. If I pay $0.50 for a loaf of bread.... But I already have so much bread that it just spoils, it's still a bad deal. You can argue that it was a good deal "in a vacuum" by stripping away the context but who cares about that? For me to have made a good decision I both needed to get the value right and needed to make it at a time that actually benefits me.

 

[Sneezy]

What does making the playoffs have to do with Tanev and Markstrom's contract status going forward? I would think if we do make the playoffs this season the odds are higher that one of the two are re-signed (whether that's a good thing or not is a separate issue).

It has nothing to do with signing the 2 players, haters just hate so you have to accept that.

 

[vancityluongo]

What's your point here? Why does it need to work both ways?

The only thing that actually matters is contending. If the team isn't in a position to contend even with SuperMiller, then it's irrelevant. The trade was a waste.

Conversely, if the team contends despite Miller being Eriksson redux, then it's a bad trade because the target was bad.

A good grade needs to have both elements. A good target and the right timing. If either one of these elements is off then it's not a good trade.

Most of Benning's trades have had neither, of course. A bad trade with bad timing. So we are used to seeing both elements of the trade be a failure. In this case, it's clear that he made a good target for once. But was it the right time to cash in a first? That still needs to be answered absolutely irrespective of miller's individual performance.

If I pay $50 for a loaf of bread it's a bad deal. If I pay $0.50 for a loaf of bread.... But I already have so much bread that it just spoils, it's still a bad deal. You can argue that it was a good deal "in a vacuum" by stripping away the context but who cares about that? For me to have made a good decision I both needed to get the value right and needed to make it at a time that actually benefits me.

So our question is: is this a good trade?

I agree with you on the elements of a good tradde. But if the timing is off, fix it. Go and subsequently move something else and re-build around SuperMiller. Would that make it a good trade? What if they trade him and get back much more than they originally gave up? Would that make the initial trade a good one, or is it just salvaging what was a poor trade?

To use your example; if you can take advantage of the market arbitrage where you're getting a $0.50 loaf of bread, but there is legitimate demand for your other loaves at $2.50, then it makes sense to buy an additional $0.50 loaf.

I get where you're coming from, because we have to assess the trade with this team and this management, and ultimately, yeah, if Miller is scoring 100 points and it just lowers the picks we do keep without any level of organizational success, that is stupid.

But singularly assessing whether this trade is good or not; I believe that at some point we would have to declare it as being good (for whatever that is worth) irregardless of what his preceding and subsequent moves are.

Ultimately my point has gone off track into semantics; this is in reality still very much a "wait and see" scenario.

 

[F A N]

So our question is: is this a good trade?

I agree with you on the elements of a good tradde. But if the timing is off, fix it. Go and subsequently move something else and re-build around SuperMiller. Would that make it a good trade? What if they trade him and get back much more than they originally gave up? Would that make the initial trade a good one, or is it just salvaging what was a poor trade?

To use your example; if you can take advantage of the market arbitrage where you're getting a $0.50 loaf of bread, but there is legitimate demand for your other loaves at $2.50, then it makes sense to buy an additional $0.50 loaf.

I get where you're coming from, because we have to assess the trade with this team and this management, and ultimately, yeah, if Miller is scoring 100 points and it just lowers the picks we do keep without any level of organizational success, that is stupid.

But singularly assessing whether this trade is good or not; I believe that at some point we would have to declare it as being good (for whatever that is worth) irregardless of what his preceding and subsequent moves are.

Ultimately my point has gone off track into semantics; this is in reality still very much a "wait and see" scenario.

That whole timing bit is also highly subjective and arbitrary. We're all trying to project the future yet some of us take past precedence as having 80-90% of the predictive value but at the same time think that more high draft picks = increased future competitiveness. If that is the case you would think that the addition of Quinn Hughes and 2nd year Petey would have some predictive value.

When discussing the Canucks possibility of making the playoffs, what did most people point out as "requirements?" Great goaltending? When the Canucks were winning games in October, unsustainable goaltending was seen by some as why the Canucks will miss the playoffs. The Canucks will need to be top 10 in special teams? Well the Canucks PP is currently top 5. Where are the goals going to come from? Maybe JT Miller helps in that department?

 

[MS]

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.

I didn't hedge any bets, and I never do.

I projected 55 points for Miller (and 55-60 on one occasion) and said he'd be a good fit with Pettersson and was a good player. I never had any issue with the player.

He was a consistent 40-45 ES point guy with NYR. I expected him to return to that level if given quality linemates, with some PP production. I did not expect him to be a PP dynamo and felt that his 20 PP points last year was probably already a fluke influenced by Stamkos and Kucherov. I was clearly wrong about that. But the ES performance is ... about what I expected.

I had a major issue with the trading of an unprotected #1 pick when we're a non-playoff team, but that's a different discussion entirely and has nothing to do with Miller himself as a player.

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.

I just picked the player universally considered the best player in the sport over the last 20 years. I could have used McDavid (33 PP points, less than Miller is tracking for now, in his 116 points last year) or Patrick Kane or Draisaitl or Gaudreau and they all had fewer PP points than Miller is tracking toward.

And yeah, you agree the production isn't sustainable. So what's the freaking point in arguing it?

 

[Melvin]

It shouldn't be terribly surprising that a 60 point player could have a 30 point in 30 game stretch. Miller has probably had 1 or 2 in the past.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

I don’t look at the number of points JT Miller scores as much as I look at the way he plays. His tools. His IQ. Is there even 1 facet of the game that he isn’t very good at? For me, he’s excellent at skating, shooting, playmaking, winning board battles, and defensive coverage. I can’t find even a single hole in his game. He’s a star player who wasn’t allowed to be a star player because of some maturity issues that he has since corrected. He might even be a superstar. You get a superstar player for a 1st round pick, you gotta call that a win if you want to be intellectually honest.

 

[F A N]

I had a major issue with the trading of an unprotected #1 pick when we're a non-playoff team, but that's a different discussion entirely and has nothing to do with Miller himself as a player.

It's a protected 1st round pick.

 

[bandwagonesque]

It shouldn't be terribly surprising that a 60 point player could have a 30 point in 30 game stretch. Miller has probably had 1 or 2 in the past.

You're shifting the goalposts, You didn't say it wasn't surprising. You said his performance so far was exactly as had been predicted. This clearly is not true.

 

[bandwagonesque]

And yeah, you agree the production isn't sustainable. So what's the freaking point in arguing it?

I never said it was and that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing his performance hasn't been as predicted, which you agree is true. I only argued it in the first place because Melvin claimed it was, and I wouldn't still be arguing it if people hadn't attempted to claim I was actually arguing about a variety of other things whose truth is uncertain in order to avoid admitting they were wrong.