Guess you are too young to remember the criticism of Michaels back in the early 90s. Too small, not reliable enough, a cry-baby. Or the criticism of HHH. That he only got to the top because of his friends and once there kept his spot by you know banging the boss's daughter.
Miz can talk, Miz can have pretty good matches, he's not a ring general, but plays his part very well. But most importantly, Miz gets heat and it's not Xpac heat like ADR gets. Miz gets the you suck, we hate you heat. ADR gets the why the hell are you on my tv heat. One is the right kind of heel heat and the other just means that the fans would rather see you go choke on a cock and die. (Or make porn movies with a transvestite ala xpac)
You know what makes Goldberg and Batista (and even Sheamus to a lesser degree) better than Ryback is they made the fans react to them. I know a lot of people on this board will hate this, but pro wrestlings most unimportant part is the wrestling. If you don't have the look, the charisma, the mic skills, the "it" factor; you will not be a star. Ask Dynamite Kid what having 5 star matches gets you...
Pro wrestling is not a sport, the athletics are just a small piece of the whole pie, It's live theater, featuring predetermined athletic contests. You look at the list of most popular wrestlers ever and you have guys who excel in the ring like Flair, Michaels, and Hart; you had guys who were "poor" in the ring according to most (i personally disagree) such as Hogan, Warrior, and Goldberg; and you have guys in between such as Austin, Rock, and Cena.
If it was the 80s and you could pick one of these sets of wrestlers to start a company with; who would you choose? 1) Hogan, Warrior, Luger, Nash, and Sid or 2) Flair, Dynamite Kid, Great Muta, Tiger Mask, and Steamboat. One set are regarded as poor workers and the others some of the best ever in the ring. Being a huge Flair mark; it'd be tempting to pick #2 solely for him; however the smart business decision would easily be #1.