Player Discussion What do we have in J.T. Miller? | Part 2

[PG Canuck]

People probably still think this is a bad trade.

 

[Chimpradamus]

People probably still think this is a bad trade.

Then they hold some kind of personal grudge of some sorts. Both Vancouver and Miller are probably very happy with him ending up in Vancouver. Canucks needed Miller to take more responsibility for team success than the role he's had on previous teams and J.T. has thrived in this bigger role as a legit first liner.

Not to mention the qualities Miller have as a player was exactly what Vancouver needed. A hard working, 200 ft, no nonsense kind of player with good puck skills. He has also just entered his prime years in terms of age. Not to mention his salary is very cap friendly considering what he brings.

 

[canuckking1]

How many empty net points does Horvat have?

 

[Bleach Clean]

JT Miller is a 26 years old 1st line winger who can win face off, kills penalty and is nearly PPG. Makes 5.25m until 2023, the guy is literally a fictional character that EA NHL auto generates 5 years into the GM mode.

But no, would rather miss the playoff again, plays the lottery and lose it again, wait another couple years for development and hope the prospect can reaches Miller’s level

Seriously, who ever still disliking the trade (like really dislike it, not because it’s a win by the management) needs to stop snaking, I know it’s legal but not that legal

Was he a fictional character in the offseason, or just now?

I still dislike this trade overall. The 2nd worst team over a 4 year span traded a potentially unprotected 1st for a mid-aged 2nd line winger. Those are still the parameters to the transaction. A career pace from Miller doesn't change it.

Now, I know you're excited and you probably think dismissing all arguments to the contrary is logical, but it's not. People have a read on this deal, and they have a threshold to when this deal turns into a win. Many have described what that threshold is or what it should be. And they're not wrong to hold to it.

A big part of the perception to this deal will be the Canucks making the playoffs. Another part will be the pick's placement should they make it. No need to jump the gun to call it one way or other before that happens, so stay patient.

 

[Dump Itch]

Canucks could've had JT Miller for like a 3rd round pick since he's a cap dump. Imagine having JT Miller + 1st round pick in these next two years. Could've and would've been a dynasty. Too bad Benning is at the helm.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Canucks could've had JT Miller for like a 3rd round pick since he's a cap dump. Imagine having JT Miller + 1st round pick in these next two years. Could've and would've been a dynasty. Too bad Benning is at the helm.

 

[dKs89]

Was he a fictional character in the offseason, or just now?

I still dislike this trade overall. The 2nd worst team over a 4 year span traded a potentially unprotected 1st for a mid-aged 2nd line winger. Those are still the parameters to the transaction. A career pace from Miller doesn't change it.

Now, I know you're excited and you probably think dismissing all arguments to the contrary is logical, but it's not. People have a read on this deal, and they have a threshold to when this deal turns into a win. Many have described what that threshold is or what it should be. And they're not wrong to hold to it.

A big part of the perception to this deal will be the Canucks making the playoffs. Another part will be the pick's placement should they make it. No need to jump the gun to call it one way or other before that happens, so stay patient.

Your argument continues to hold no ground as you continue to bring up the “past 4 years.”

Entirely irrelevant to this team at the time of the trade is even 3 of those 4 years. There was no Petey. There was no Hughes. Marky wasn’t who he is. There wasn’t 60 point Bo.

Stop it. It’s an absolute horseshit argument.

As of right now, this is fact: Miller was traded for nothing. Until that nothing proves otherwise it’s a major win.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Your argument continues to hold no ground as you continue to bring up the “past 4 years.”

Entirely irrelevant to this team at the time of the trade is even 3 of those 4 years. There was no Petey. There was no Hughes. Marky wasn’t who he is. There wasn’t 60 point Bo.

Stop it. It’s an absolute horse**** argument.

As of right now, this is fact: Miller was traded for nothing. Until that nothing proves otherwise it’s a major win.

Ah, so a 1st round pick is now "nothing"? Alright then.


Anyway, you can continue to ignore the context of the trade at the time it was made. Feel free. Forget that this GM traded a 1st from one of the worst teams in the league. A team that featured:

- Horvat, who was on a 56 point pace in 2017-18, before getting 61 in 2018-19.
- Markstrom, who was at a .912 SV% for 2 years already, which is 005% from what he is doing now.
- And Pettersson, who was at a 76 PPG pace in his rookie season.

These guys were here... And this team still finished 9th worst in the league on P% in 2018-19. 23rd overall. Which I suppose is an improvement on their 27th overall ranking from 2017-18. Stark difference to be sure.

You are right though in saying that Hughes wasn't here. I guess Benning just had the gift of foresight in projecting his #1Dman level rookie performance? Seems reasonable.

I'll let my argument speak for itself. There are still posters, I'm sure, that do not as easily forget the position Benning was trading from in the offseason in order to celebrate Miller's performance now. People should be able to consider both of these concepts simultaneously, I hope?

 

[dKs89]

Ah, so a 1st round pick is now "nothing"? Alright then.


Anyway, you can continue to ignore the context of the trade at the time it was made. Feel free. Forget that this GM traded a 1st from one of the worst teams in the league. A team that featured:

- Horvat, who was on a 56 point pace in 2017-18, before getting 61 in 2018-19.
- Markstrom, who was at a .912 SV% for 2 years already, which is 005% from what he is doing now.
- And Pettersson, who was at a 76 PPG pace in his rookie season.

These guys were here... And this team still finished 9th worst in the league on P% in 2018-19. 23rd overall. Which I suppose is an improvement on their 27th overall ranking from 2017-18. Stark difference to be sure.

You are right though in saying that Hughes wasn't here. I guess Benning just had the gift of foresight in projecting his #1Dman level rookie performance? Seems reasonable.

I'll let my argument speak for itself. There are still posters, I'm sure, that do not as easily forget the position Benning was trading from in the offseason in order to celebrate Miller's performance now. People should be able to consider both of these concepts simultaneously, I hope?

Has that first round pick played an NHL game yet? Has that first round pick scored a goal? Have they even been drafted? It’s not a difficult concept. The first round pick is not a player in the NHL. That pick has yet to become anything. How is that pick helping Tampa this season? Innocent until proven guilty, countless other other cliches. It’s not an argument. It’s a fact. Until the pick becomes a player in the NHL and at that becomes a useful one, it’s a massive win for the Canucks. So far they traded, yes, nothing for Miller.

Your argument of the “past four seasons” is hilariously bad on so many levels. As I said and clearly needs repeating, the key pieces on this team at the time of the trade were either unproven at the NHL level or have not yet reached the level they are currently at, therefore it’s entirely irrelevant. The only relevant season was last season. Let’s show you why!!

15-16: 75 points, Boeser the best prospect in the system, still a complete unknown at NHL level.
16-17: 69 points, Juolevi drafted and Boeser still
An unknown, Pettersson drafted
17-18: 73 points. Boeser has a Calder finalist season, Pettersson has historic SHL season, still unknown how he does in NHL
18-19: 81 points, Petey wins Calder, proves to be the 1C this team needed, Bo performs at arguably a 1B first line centre level, Quinn Hughes impresses in his 5 games where he got increasingly more ice time. Marky started playing the best hockey of his career.

So tell me then, from 15-16 to 17-18, three of the “past four” seasons you consistently refer to in regards to this trade, please tell me that they were relevant in judging whether or not a first round pick should be traded for a clear top 6 forward. Those seasons where yet again I have to repeat. This team did not have Petey. He purely did not exist as a player at the NHL level. And I know this might be difficult, but yes, a teams management and coaching staff can expect players to take steps, and expect even rookies to have a big impact. That player being Hughes. Bo was not a 60 point player. Marky was not the player he started to become last season. Pearson produced 9 goals and 12 points in 19 games and fit like a glove playing with Bo. He didn’t exist in those seasons.


It’s almost like the majority of those seasons, the team lacked high end young talent, of which included a 1C and 1D. They didn’t have a clear idea what their goaltending future might be. They didn’t have depth.

All of that reversed last season. They now had a 1C, they now had what they believed to be a potential top pairing D in Hughes. Bo as he always does took his game to a new level. As did Marky. Demko even looked promising.

It’s almost like, 18-19 was a clear change from the prior 15-16 to 17-18 seasons. It’s not very difficult to understand. This is a team that has improved their point total for 3 straight seasons. A team clear as day on the rise to everybody in the hockey community other than one small extremely vocal minority on the internet. A team that needed to make moves like the trade for Miller to improve further.

Miller is out producing and outplaying even the biggest optimists expectations. As is Pearson. As was Leivo before his injury. That’s 3 trades where Benning identified a player being under utilized. So it’s almost like he thought those players could all perform better if given the correct opportunity.
But I know you just refuse to accept that possibility. Because god damn those trades from the past four seasons clearly shows he can’t do that!

The “past 4 seasons” argument holds absolutely zero water. There is no logic to it.

 

[Cucumber]

Has that first round pick played an NHL game yet? Has that first round pick scored a goal? Have they even been drafted? It’s not a difficult concept. The first round pick is not a player in the NHL. That pick has yet to become anything. How is that pick helping Tampa this season? Innocent until proven guilty, countless other other cliches. It’s not an argument. It’s a fact. Until the pick becomes a player in the NHL and at that becomes a useful one, it’s a massive win for the Canucks. So far they traded, yes, nothing for Miller.

Your argument of the “past four seasons” is hilariously bad on so many levels. As I said and clearly needs repeating, the key pieces on this team at the time of the trade were either unproven at the NHL level or have not yet reached the level they are currently at, therefore it’s entirely irrelevant. The only relevant season was last season. Let’s show you why!!

15-16: 75 points, Boeser the best prospect in the system, still a complete unknown at NHL level.
16-17: 69 points, Juolevi drafted and Boeser still
An unknown, Pettersson drafted
17-18: 73 points. Boeser has a Calder finalist season, Pettersson has historic SHL season, still unknown how he does in NHL
18-19: 81 points, Petey wins Calder, proves to be the 1C this team needed, Bo performs at arguably a 1B first line centre level, Quinn Hughes impresses in his 5 games where he got increasingly more ice time. Marky started playing the best hockey of his career.

So tell me then, from 15-16 to 17-18, three of the “past four” seasons you consistently refer to in regards to this trade, please tell me that they were relevant in judging whether or not a first round pick should be traded for a clear top 6 forward. Those seasons where yet again I have to repeat. This team did not have Petey. He purely did not exist as a player at the NHL level. And I know this might be difficult, but yes, a teams management and coaching staff can expect players to take steps, and expect even rookies to have a big impact. That player being Hughes. Bo was not a 60 point player. Marky was not the player he started to become last season. Pearson produced 9 goals and 12 points in 19 games and fit like a glove playing with Bo. He didn’t exist in those seasons.


It’s almost like the majority of those seasons, the team lacked high end young talent, of which included a 1C and 1D. They didn’t have a clear idea what their goaltending future might be. They didn’t have depth.

All of that reversed last season. They now had a 1C, they now had what they believed to be a potential top pairing D in Hughes. Bo as he always does took his game to a new level. As did Marky. Demko even looked promising.

It’s almost like, 18-19 was a clear change from the prior 15-16 to 17-18 seasons. It’s not very difficult to understand. This is a team that has improved their point total for 3 straight seasons. A team clear as day on the rise to everybody in the hockey community other than one small extremely vocal minority on the internet. A team that needed to make moves like the trade for Miller to improve further.

Miller is out producing and outplaying even the biggest optimists expectations. As is Pearson. As was Leivo before his injury. That’s 3 trades where Benning identified a player being under utilized. So it’s almost like he thought those players could all perform better if given the correct opportunity.
But I know you just refuse to accept that possibility. Because god damn those trades from the past four seasons clearly shows he can’t do that!

The “past 4 seasons” argument holds absolutely zero water. There is no logic to it.

Drop mic

You are killing it in this argument.

 

[Grub]

What do we have?

Well one of the best trades in recent memory. We got our self a first line player for a late round first.

 

[Diversification]

Has that first round pick played an NHL game yet? Has that first round pick scored a goal? Have they even been drafted? It’s not a difficult concept. The first round pick is not a player in the NHL. That pick has yet to become anything. How is that pick helping Tampa this season? Innocent until proven guilty, countless other other cliches. It’s not an argument. It’s a fact. Until the pick becomes a player in the NHL and at that becomes a useful one, it’s a massive win for the Canucks. So far they traded, yes, nothing for Miller.

Your argument of the “past four seasons” is hilariously bad on so many levels. As I said and clearly needs repeating, the key pieces on this team at the time of the trade were either unproven at the NHL level or have not yet reached the level they are currently at, therefore it’s entirely irrelevant. The only relevant season was last season. Let’s show you why!!

15-16: 75 points, Boeser the best prospect in the system, still a complete unknown at NHL level.
16-17: 69 points, Juolevi drafted and Boeser still
An unknown, Pettersson drafted
17-18: 73 points. Boeser has a Calder finalist season, Pettersson has historic SHL season, still unknown how he does in NHL
18-19: 81 points, Petey wins Calder, proves to be the 1C this team needed, Bo performs at arguably a 1B first line centre level, Quinn Hughes impresses in his 5 games where he got increasingly more ice time. Marky started playing the best hockey of his career.

So tell me then, from 15-16 to 17-18, three of the “past four” seasons you consistently refer to in regards to this trade, please tell me that they were relevant in judging whether or not a first round pick should be traded for a clear top 6 forward. Those seasons where yet again I have to repeat. This team did not have Petey. He purely did not exist as a player at the NHL level. And I know this might be difficult, but yes, a teams management and coaching staff can expect players to take steps, and expect even rookies to have a big impact. That player being Hughes. Bo was not a 60 point player. Marky was not the player he started to become last season. Pearson produced 9 goals and 12 points in 19 games and fit like a glove playing with Bo. He didn’t exist in those seasons.


It’s almost like the majority of those seasons, the team lacked high end young talent, of which included a 1C and 1D. They didn’t have a clear idea what their goaltending future might be. They didn’t have depth.

All of that reversed last season. They now had a 1C, they now had what they believed to be a potential top pairing D in Hughes. Bo as he always does took his game to a new level. As did Marky. Demko even looked promising.

It’s almost like, 18-19 was a clear change from the prior 15-16 to 17-18 seasons. It’s not very difficult to understand. This is a team that has improved their point total for 3 straight seasons. A team clear as day on the rise to everybody in the hockey community other than one small extremely vocal minority on the internet. A team that needed to make moves like the trade for Miller to improve further.

Miller is out producing and outplaying even the biggest optimists expectations. As is Pearson. As was Leivo before his injury. That’s 3 trades where Benning identified a player being under utilized. So it’s almost like he thought those players could all perform better if given the correct opportunity.
But I know you just refuse to accept that possibility. Because god damn those trades from the past four seasons clearly shows he can’t do that!

The “past 4 seasons” argument holds absolutely zero water. There is no logic to it.

I'm as happy as anyone with how the Miller trade worked out and the team's current success, but this is not a fair take. At the time of the trade, it was perfectly reasonable to be skeptical given Benning's (numerous) missteps, the current status of our prospect pool, and well-founded reservations as to whether the team was indeed ready to take the next step.

As it turns out, those concerns proved to be largely unfounded - in retrospect. It turns out the timing was ideal to add Myers and Miller because QH performs as a solid #2/3 during his rookie season, Pearson, Horvat and Virtanen are having career years, we've been relatively healthy (Tanev in particular).

Sometimes you make the right decision based on the wrong reasons (desperate bid to save your job) and sometimes you make the wrong one based on the right reasons. That's life.

But no need to gloat that we drew an inside straight on the river to retroactively prove that Benning was some kind of visionary. Let's just enjoy the fact that we did and that it might very well serve as the basis for sustained success for seasons to come.

 

[Hoghandler]

I still dislike this trade overall.

If given the choice right now to un-do that trade, do you do it?

 

[4Twenty]

The “past 4 seasons” argument holds absolutely zero water. There is no logic to it.

Imagine thinking that history has no impact on the present or future.

 

[ArtursSilovsShirt]

The entire argument behind the JT Miller trade is why I hate Canucks fans and we don't deserve to ever win a cup.

It's incredible how half of you can convince yourselves that you know the inner workings of every trade and transaction that goes down in this league. "Well, it's obvious that this guy was disliked in this locker room so he's an easy target and blah blah blah." No one here has any evidence that another team wasn't willing to shell out a 1st round pick for JT Miller...Sure, Tampa needed to shed some cap, but that doesn't matter if another team with cap space was bidding alongside the Canucks and said "Hey, we think we'd like to give you a high draft pick for this guy!" Benning paid a respectable price to get a guy he wanted and that guy has turned out to be an absolute steal. Looking back on this deal and going "Oh, well, we could have DEFINITELY had him for a 3rd, so BAD TRADE." is such a stupid, embarrassing, frustrating take.

I need to hide this thread before I go postal.

(However, to the people who still think this trade sucks, I wish I could have the confidence and attitude you have, to always believe you're correct and God's gift to mankind even when you're an absolute idiot).

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Honestly some times you just have to admit you were wrong. I don’t know why some people are so invested in being right on some of these things. I thought the trade was too high risk given where we finished last year and that the trade might end up like the first Kessel trade where Toronto ended up giving up the second overall pick to Boston.
In hindsight that was unlikely though given that we had two years to make the playoffs whereas the Kessel trade was based on one year only and wasn’t lottery protected. And I also underestimated just how good Miller was based on what many other fans of Tampa and especially the NYR were saying.

Realistically this was a team on the rise that was decimated last year by injuries and a lack of depth. The off season additions plus the adds last year of Leivo and Pearson significantly improved the depth. Then Virtanen and Markstrom took big steps forward, our young players for the most part predictably improved and Hughes has completely changed the PP and offense from the back end.

Some of that may not have been predictable but I think at the time of the trade it was highly likely that we were giving up a pick somewhere in the 20’s for a player who was a top 6 player on a great contract who was under utilized because of the amazing depth in Tampa. That’s a trade that is a good trade for both teams. The fact that it turned out better than we could have reasonably expected doesn’t change that.

 

[bobbyb2009]

I have to say, I didn't like the trade but really liked the player. I certainly didn't see this kind of performance coming from JT, but I knew he was a player this team badly needed. He has been so very good and has changed the way the top of our lineup looks in a way that a fantasy GM could only dream about.

However, yikes to everyone crowing already. So many here (me included) often say wait and see when our young prospects are not yet performing. This is the exact time to be saying wait and see, IMO.

If the Canucks are to make the playoffs and say pick somewhere around 20, this was a very good trade and worked out really well!

But, for example, let's say we barely miss the playoffs this year, and then, god forbid, Petey and QH and others get hurt next year, and this team finishes bottom 10 next year and wins the lottery.... Are we saying this is a good exchange??

I think it is is clear that if the season ended today, GOOD trade (maybe even great). But maybe let's wait until we know what we gave up before going crazy celebrating??

 

[Hansen]

You should be able to evaluate the value of a trade the moment it happens, it can get better or worse at the time as players progress/regress but ultimately you have assets that are moved each other at a set point in time and they each had values at that time which were used in making the deal

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I don't think anyone really needs to admit they're wrong in this context.

You can take issue with the trade at the time it happened based on the circumstances/facts, and then change your opinion 51 games into the season based on both Miller's and the team's performance. There's nothing wrong with that. Changing your opinion doesn't mean you were originally wrong if your opinion was founded on reasoning that made sense at the time. I'd prefer people that are willing to change their opinion, not because other posters told them they are wrong, but because they are more open-minded and are willing to adjust their views when appropriate. It's important to be fluid with your views rather than dig your heels into your original position (which many people here are guilty of, myself included at times).

It's entirely fair to say there were red flags at the time the trade was made. The facts are that we were a bottom feeding team for the last four consecutive seasons, so the idea that our pick could be top 10 was a realistic and plausible possibility. Our management has had a poor track record of pro scouting (which seems to have improved, but the jury is still out with the recent UFA signings IMO). Then also factor in that Miller had played his entire career on eastern teams, which made him a bit of an unknown commodity for most of us that don't follow eastern teams closely. Benning was also fighting to save his job and this trade, along with the Myers/Ferland signings, appeared to be desperation moves to a certain extent. All of these factors are valid reasons to be originally skeptical of the trade. Posters trying to shame skeptics and demand that they admit that they were wrong are missing the point entirely, and I don't mean that in a condescending manner - I'm being as genuine as I can here.

This line of thinking where people are out for their pound of flesh and no longer care about the actual subject matter, and are more focused on who is right/wrong (while using hindsight as their only pillar) is what makes these boards truly toxic, IMO. Some posters are more focused on the person posting and not the actual views and reasoning they are using, which renders any meaningful discussion almost impossible. It's just too bad because it basically flushes the purpose of these message boards down the toilet.

Alright, I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[Boose Brudreau]

You should be able to evaluate the value of a trade the moment it happens, it can get better or worse at the time as players progress/regress but ultimately you have assets that are moved each other at a set point in time and they each had values at that time which were used in making the deal

no. you can evaluate the price paid when the transaction happens (this case is somewhat unique in that the canucks gave up a pick which still isn't known), but the "value" won't be known until much later. Price is what you pay, value is what you get. This is still a hard trade to evaluate since we still don't know what we've paid (though it's starting to look like a mid to late 2020 first), but the early returns look spectacular.....the pro scouting group appear to have righted a lot of previous wrongs by targeting Miller (Pearson too FWIW).

 

[WetcoastOrca]

no. you can evaluate the price paid when the transaction happens (this case is somewhat unique in that the canucks gave up a pick which still isn't known), but the "value" won't be known until much later. Price is what you pay, value is what you get. This is still a hard trade to evaluate since we still don't know what we've paid (though it's starting to look like a mid to late 2020 first), but the early returns look spectacular.....the pro scouting group appear to have righted a lot of previous wrongs by targeting Miller (Pearson too FWIW).

Good balanced post.
Agree completely. I think setting the price paid based on performance over a two year period significantly but not completely reduced the risk that a high pick would be the price to be paid.
One of those trades where both teams have to be happy with what they got.

 

[I am toxic]

Your argument continues to hold no ground as you continue to bring up the “past 4 years.”

Entirely irrelevant to this team at the time of the trade is even 3 of those 4 years. There was no Petey. There was no Hughes. Marky wasn’t who he is. There wasn’t 60 point Bo.

Stop it. It’s an absolute horse**** argument.

As of right now, this is fact: Miller was traded for nothing. Until that nothing proves otherwise it’s a major win.

 

[moog35]

Canucks could've had JT Miller for like a 3rd round pick since he's a cap dump. Imagine having JT Miller + 1st round pick in these next two years. Could've and would've been a dynasty. Too bad Benning is at the helm.

Ya it’s too bad that Benning didn’t listen to JUDD BRACKETT on this one. Apparently JUDD BRACKETT had negotiated a deal for Miller in exchange for a 3rd but Benning nixed the deal and offered a 1st because he’s so stupid

 

[Jyrki21]

The concern was never about Miller being bad, it was that the Canucks were not close enough to their window of contention to be making a very blatant “now” move like that. The fact that Miller’s trajectory, to date, was not point-per-game first-liner obviously doesn’t help matters.

Those concerns were neither “wrong” nor unfounded. It’s possible the Canucks have made a leap into contention right now. It’s also just not that likely though. And having a nice player for a few years is fun and all, but if he’s not in a position to contribute at the peak of whatever the next Cup window might be, it’s still more than fair to wonder whether it was worthwhile. Most teams make trades like this in an attempt to put them over the top, not to get into the playoffs.

No matter how good he is there is always going to be that question... and that is with the very generous assumption that pro scouting knew he was this good, in spite of limited evidence of that. It seems more likely he just happened to be available given TB’s situation, and they jumped.

 

[F A N]

I don't think anyone really needs to admit they're wrong in this context.

You can take issue with the trade at the time it happened based on the circumstances/facts, and then change your opinion 51 games into the season based on both Miller's and the team's performance. There's nothing wrong with that. Changing your opinion doesn't mean you were originally wrong if your opinion was founded on reasoning that made sense at the time. I'd prefer people that are willing to change their opinion, not because other posters told them they are wrong, but because they are more open-minded and are willing to adjust their views when appropriate. It's important to be fluid with your views rather than dig your heels into your original position (which many people here are guilty of, myself included at times).

It's entirely fair to say there were red flags at the time the trade was made. The facts are that we were a bottom feeding team for the last four consecutive seasons, so the idea that our pick could be top 10 was a realistic and plausible possibility. Our management has had a poor track record of pro scouting (which seems to have improved, but the jury is still out with the recent UFA signings IMO). Then also factor in that Miller had played his entire career on eastern teams, which made him a bit of an unknown commodity for most of us that don't follow eastern teams closely. Benning was also fighting to save his job and this trade, along with the Myers/Ferland signings, appeared to be desperation moves to a certain extent. All of these factors are valid reasons to be originally skeptical of the trade. Posters trying to shame skeptics and demand that they admit that they were wrong are missing the point entirely, and I don't mean that in a condescending manner - I'm being as genuine as I can here.

This line of thinking where people are out for their pound of flesh and no longer care about the actual subject matter, and are more focused on who is right/wrong (while using hindsight as their only pillar) is what makes these boards truly toxic, IMO. Some posters are more focused on the person posting and not the actual views and reasoning they are using, which renders any meaningful discussion almost impossible. It's just too bad because it basically flushes the purpose of these message boards down the toilet.

Alright, I'll get off my soapbox now.

I agree with your overall sentiments, but just because your opinion (not saying yours specifically) was founded on reasoning that made sense at the time doesn't mean that it wasn't based on assumptions and presumptions that have proven to be wrong. That's what I think those who continue to view this trade as a bad one don't get.

If I made an opinion that dropping out of Harvard to start your own company in your parents' garage is stupid, I would think that that opinion is founded on reasoning that would make sense to most people: Most startups fail while a Harvard education can set you up nicely for life. But I would be completely wrong about Bill Gates etc.

You can talk about pro scouting track record or Benning's personal motivations behind the trade, but how logical is it to place a greater significance in those personal subjective feelings than to look at what the player could potentially bring and has brought to the team. Miller's strengths based on his previous underlying numbers suggest that he helps address the team's underlying weakness from the previous season. There was obviously a spot alongside either Horvat or Petey. Miller was also 26 and coming off a down year when previously he had increased his offensive production over the previous 3 seasons. It's logical to consider him a bounceback candidate.

As for the 1st round pick and "timing" argument, it's looking more and more like that Benning's timing was spot on. The Canucks are rising at a time when previous power teams are struggling. So if your opinion of the trade was based on your presumption that the Canucks are likely to miss the playoffs and that 1st round pick would be a top 10 or even top 3 pick then that opinion is looking like it couldn't be more wrong.