Yeah, he was definitely polarizing. The main reason being that we passed on Tarasenko for him. Hindsight is 20/20, and everyone has it. Tarasenko's success drummed up alot of dislike for McI...especially when you take in to account his extended development time. I know I never gave up on him, but many already had foregone conclusions that he would not survive in the new "speed-driven" NHL....and kept whining about Tarasenko (which was water under the bridge....but they refused to look past it and simply root for McIlrath).
I think you're right that many people were hesitant...and I was also one of those that thought AV was mis-developing him. Perhaps the tough love is working? In any case....there were people that would trade him for the right return, and those (like you say) that couldn't make up their mind. There was that sense that he could be someone if he brought it all together like he is now.
What was uncommon were those that felt so strongly about Miller that they would defend his right to be here at every turn. Rust is that guy. Just wanted to give him a bit of credit for feeling so strongly that Miller would eventually put it together.
Regarding occasional trades....I said that perhaps I only spoke for myself...but I would of traded him at times w/o hesitation. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. But now that you mention it, I also do recall many people concerned about letting a 22 year old with mini-OV potential traded.
To note, this isn't aimed at you Revel, or even really any one individual. A lot of it is overarching.
For me, I don't really give anyone an uncondintional pass.
I feel like there are three guys I've been very consistent on over the past few years - Kreider, McI and Miller.
Kreider - A tough guy to stop, a very dangerous player, not a star, but a very good support player. Lacks some vision and hockey sense, but his size/speed make him very difficult to stop when he's engaged. I see 30 goal, 60 point abilities in him, but admit that everyone season is quickly becoming "Wait until next season." Really hesitant to trade him, but willing if the right move came along. Didn't see any deals out there that fit the criteria for me.
Miller - A very good forward prospect whose came rises and falls with his emotions - not unlike Dubinsky in many ways. Needs (needed) to decide what kind of player he was going to be the NHL level, and transition what he did at the AHL to the big show. If he commits to using all his tools, he'll be fine (which he's doing right now). If he thinks he's going to float by on skill alone, it's not going to work. Was really hesitant to trade him, but willing if the right move came along. Didn't see any deals out there that fit the criteria for me. The one area I may have been off on was offensive upside, I pegged Miller as more of a 15 goal, 40 point player. He may indeed be more than that, though I want to wait and see what he does next season.
McI - A long term project who was not going to put up a ton of offense (when people wanted him to be the next Shea Weber). Was not going to be Jessiman, because he projected as an NHL player. The question was/is what kind of NHL player, second pairing guy, or more of a third pairing. Stated that there were two big challenges facing McI - people were also going to look at the people drafted under him, and players like him take a long time to develop and usually don't pay divedends for the team that drafted them because of waiver rules and other factors. I did express some doubt as to whether he makes it as a regular
for the Rangers as a result of those factors.
With all of that said, I want to re-emphasize that I acknowledge that there were people who were not necessarily fans of the kids. It would be impossible to state that there weren't.
But to say 90 percent of posters wanted to trade these kids and were packing their bags just isn't accurate. It's not accurate for a number of reasons:
1. This board seldom if ever has a 90 percent agreement rate.
2. That's a lot of posters.
3. More often that not, any topic has 15-20 people who are particularly passionate about it. They may post on the topic a lot, resulting in hundreds or even thousands of posts. But the volume of posts, especially if done by a vocal group, does not necessarily constitute a majority opinion.
4. A lot of people, more often than not, tend to have a wait and see approach. They neither have blind faith, nor inflexible skepticism. They see the potential, and they see the flaws.
5. There seems to be a growing sentiment that people want to take victory laps for the their successes, but their misses are off limits. Can we split the difference on the two. If we feel the psychological need to be vindicated when we're right, than we need to accept the opposite approach when we carry on about something and we turn out to be wrong. Or, the other option, is that we take it all in stride.
