unlike B. Analayo, B. Sujato does actually address MN 117, and the issues with MN 117 being Abhidhamma influenced in his blog article on V&V.
It's not MN 117 that B. Sujato deliberately avoids discussing, it's MN 125 and MN 78.
From his blog on V&V:
Actually, right now I’m interested in a somewhat subtle linguistic approach to this question. But I’ve found that if you use a complex analysis of a problem, some people, understandably enough, don’t have time or interest to follow it through; and often we tend to assume that if a complex argument is just a sign of sophistry and lack of real evidence. So first up I’ll present the more straightforward reasons why vitakka/vicara don’t mean thinking in jhana, based on the texts and on experience. Then I’ll get into the more subtle question of why this mistake gets made.
Actually, the fact that he does not address the elephant in the room, MN 125, MN 19's parallel, and MN 78, even though he's translated the pali version of all those suttas, and people like me have been drawing his attention to this fact for several years publicly, addressing him directly, that's how we know he has lack of evidence and relies on sophistry to support his mistranslation of V&V.
Audit coming soon.