Presumably your idea is this: Jesus knows all that is going to happen (divine foresight, either his own or mediated to him by God), and so he knows when the sea is going to become calm. So he just times his words to match the situation that he knows is coming. No miraculous violation of natural law is involved.
This approach might be plausible, if used to explain only a small number of miracles. But if used frequently, it raises as many problems as it solves. For example, in Mark the author repeatedly stresses the instantaneous occurrence of Jesus’s healings. So if the miracle is only one of “timing”, then the situation is this: Jesus deliberately walks into a town where by a statistical freak (known to him through his foresight), hundreds of people are going to be suddenly cured of leprosy etc. by natural causes, and because he knows the exact moment in each case, all he has to do is approach the sick people at the right moments, and what is merely perfect timing looks like a series of supernatural healings.
But that looks very much like deception on Jesus’s part. He would know that all onlookers would treat the healings as direct supernatural interventions, not coincidences of timing. So he would be trying to gain credit for miraculous powers he didn’t actually display. And the same would apply to God, who is supposed to be the inspirer of the Bible, and hence of the Gospel narratives. God would know the way Mark’s healing stories would read to all future generations of Christians; he would know that they would be understood by Christians as supernatural special divine actions, as healings that would not have happened without Jesus’s intervention. Did God want all future Christians to be deceived on this point?
If some ancient astronomer, who had learned to predict solar eclipses, stood up before a crowd in a magician’s costume, and said, “I am going to make the moon darken the sun one week from now,” and uttered some nonsense magical formula that supposedly would bring about the event, and let people believe that he had caused it, we would call that man a liar and a fraud. I’m not comfortable with an explanation of miracles that makes both Jesus and God (as author of the Bible) liars and frauds.
It seems to me that any general appeal to mere “natural laws plus timing” as an explanation of Biblical miracles merely moves one from the frying pan into the fire. It allows one to escape criticism from those who mock supernatural actions as “unscientific” or “impossible,” but at the cost of making Jesus and God into confidence tricksters. I think it’s too high a price to pay. As an isolated explanation of single miracles, it might be admissible, but as an explanation for the majority of them, I think it has to be rejected. Given a choice between: “You believe in a hocus-pocus magician God who arbitrarily interferes with nature,” and “You believe in a trickster God who never interferes with the natural order but wants people to think he does,” I’d rather be accused of the former than the latter.