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

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

You're so close to getting it. So close.

It's never been entirely Benning's fault. They're both equally at fault. They both shouldn't be here anymore.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Here's how I reconcile it: The parameters of the trade were that the addition of JT Miller to the team would lead to a playoff spot either this year or the next. This was not a terrible bet. Boeser and EP were Calder candidates the preceding years and the team was slowly improving. It's not without risk, but it's not insane either. At core, what many posters balked at was the cost of a 1st rounder because they erroneously assessed that the team desperately needed this pick to add a missing piece. There was a great deal of concern that without said piece, the team was doomed to mediocrity.

But several things were revealed this season that not only made that bet pay off, but pay off early and beyond what was reasonably expected: Benning hit an inside straight flush on the river when QH showed he could step in and play like a top pairing dman right off the hop. As an unintended consequence, QH took a lot of pressure off of Tanev who was able to stay healthy with more cascading benefits down the lineup. JT Miller was way better than advertised showing instant chemistry with EP and adding a much needed smart, physical dimension to what would be known as the lotto line.

So in my mind the wildly non-linear improvement was a result of elements there were already present. It set the stage for a lot of internal improvement that synergized with the addition of Hughes, Miller, and to a lesser extent Myers. Those types of things are difficult to model with statistics. I think they can only be recognized by an understanding of how a group of young players can rapidly improve and an understanding of the parts that were already in place. Do I credit Benning with that level of vision? Not really, but like a historian can trace the origins of the first World War past the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, I can in retrospect look at the team and reconcile how a really good team can come together without carefully laying out pieces one-by-one. That's what I meant when I said that this year's team has challenged some of my pre-conceived notions.

You have laid your points out well. I appreciate your candor. Here is my interpretation of what you have written above:

Based upon what has unfolded for this team, you can trace the different elements coming together to result in a playoff berth. Several things were revealed this season that made the bet pay off early. Prospect progression is wildly non-linear, but the elements to improvement were already present (Pettersson and Boeser). In the end, this season made you challenge some of your preconceived notions, even if you do not credit Benning with the level of vision it would have taken to foresee its occurrence.

Does that sum up your position here? Please correct me where it does not.

My response:

- You can understand how the team came together, but you cannot grant Benning the foresight of them coming together. Yet, he rolled the dice based upon foresight, not current knowledge.

- The elements that were already present, primarily Pettersson and Boeser, repeated a similar performance this year. Expecting a similar performance this year from them does not align with the philosophy of wildly non-linear prospect improvement. Primarily because non-linear development includes downturns too.

- Several things were revealed _this_ season to make the bet pay off...? Do you understand how that information cannot be used to make the initial projection? Hughes, Miller and Myers as Canucks were not known elements heading into the season. Unless....

- You want to rely on statistics to infer their potential impact. And when that happens, we start looking at the statistics of the team in the prior 4 years.

So far, the only aspects that you have outlined that supposes this was not a foolish bet are that Pettersson and Boeser were Calder candidates. Granted, they were on the team and they were high quality young players. Nearly everything else is using information from this season to retroactively apply the odds to the initial situation. This is a no no.

Do you see now my point when I say that a great deal of mental gymnastics would be required to reconcile this year's performance to that of the 4 years prior? Benning's foresight applies to both contexts.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I was one of them. Canucks were a bubble team this year - most expected San Jose and Las Vegas to be safe playoff teams, with essentially the rest of the Pacific competing for 3rd and wildcard slots.

You said that they were likely to make the playoffs this year or next year, looking back at 4 years of the 2nd worst record in the league? Ok, I'll take your word for it. I don't remember you saying this, but if I had I think I would have responded to it.

From my recollection, most had them as a bubble team at best. A bubble team is even odds to make or miss the playoffs. A likely playoff team is not considered a bubble team at best.

Can you list others (of this "many") that had them firmly in the playoffs?

 

[Canucks1096]

His past three seasons were 56, 58 and 47 (pacing for 51). That last season was playing 3rd line minutes with PP2 time.

Those numbers are low end first liner numbers, and were expected to increase to the 55-60 if he got more offensive minutes (obviously nobody dreamed that he would blossom like he did).

His contract was quite good and had term, but Tampa had to move him because they're stacked.

Miller was 27th in winger scoring in 2017 and 39th in 2018. Around the middle of the pack so I won't call it low end first line winger. Also Miller regular linemates in NY was Grabner and Hayes. Two players that are not legit first line player. Having more ice time and a lot better linemates, I don't think we should be too surprised he got more than 55 to 60 points.

 

[BB06]

Don't know why people are typing walls of text. Benning took a risk on Miller who average 54 points a game over the past 3 season probably hoping he could be a 60-65 guy in a prime offensive position that would've been given to him alongside a leadership role. He's exceeded that and was on pace for 80+ points this season. If Canucks were a lottery team six straight year we would've had bigger fish to fry.

 

[Canucks1096]

Who are these many people?

Has a good 2nd line player been traded for a potential lottery pick? Is that your question? Or, is it now: Has a good 2nd line player been traded for a 20+ 1st rounder?

Miller production was a 1st line player in 2017 and 2018. At least that is an improvement. A lot of people were calling Miller a Middle 6 winger before the trade. Now people calling him 2nd line player before the trade. At least we are improving.

 

[deckercky]

You said that they were likely to make the playoffs this year or next year, looking back at 4 years of the 2nd worst record in the league? Ok, I'll take your word for it. I don't remember you saying this, but if I had I think I would have responded to it.

From my recollection, most had them as a bubble team at best. A bubble team is even odds to make or miss the playoffs. A likely playoff team is not considered a bubble team at best.

Can you list others (of this "many") that had them firmly in the playoffs?

Some simple math based on your post. If a team is as likely as not to make the playoffs two years straight, then it is likely to make playoffs at least one of the years. On your math, there's a 25% chance of missing two consecutive years if they were a 50% chance per year. That's, as I said, likely over two years, but not over one.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Miller production was a 1st line player in 2017 and 2018. At least that is an improvement. A lot of people were calling Miller a Middle 6 winger before the trade. Now people calling him 2nd line player before the trade. At least we are improving.

I think you need to direct your post to those that had changed their position on what he was prior to the trade. Meaning, not me.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Some simple math based on your post. If a team is as likely as not to make the playoffs two years straight, then it is likely to make playoffs at least one of the years. On your math, there's a 25% chance of missing two consecutive years if they were a 50% chance per year. That's, as I said, likely over two years, but not over one.

I will reiterate, I take your word for it in terms of what you had said.

I'm just looking for the evidence of the many people who thought the same?

The bubble team _at_best_ projections of this one year, has me suspect of the original claim over the 2 years. I'd like to also see the rationale of said claims as they were made.

By majority, in my recollection, no one had this team as a likely playoff candidate, 1 or 2 years. If they had, the discussions on the Miller trade would have been very different in the offseason.

 

[RandV]

Many people thought the Canucks were quite likely to make the playoffs one of the next two seasons. Certainly more likely than giving up a 2021 top 10 pick.

I think Benning likely could have squeezed down the pick (I think the 'fair' discounted value would have been 2020 1st if the Canucks make the playoffs, 2020 2nd if the Canucks miss the playoffs), but it was a good player on a good contract that would have been a good complement to the roster even if he wasn't the homerun that he turned out to be, who would not have been available except for Tampa's cap crunch. Has a player with Miller's pedigree/contract/age been traded for less?

It's always hard to come up with an exact situation, as there's tons of variables in play, but scanning hockeydb.com draft by year for top two picks prior to Miller here's a list of roughly comparable trades:

Nino Niederreiter for Victor Rask
Charlie Coyle for Ryan Donato and a 4th
Brayden Schenn traded for two 1sts
Kyle Palmieri for 2nd and 3rd
Marcus Johansson for 2nd and 3rd

 

[RandV]

Yes but the pick was protected. The Canucks had two years to make the playoffs if the concern is that pick would be a "lotto pick."

That could be the case for other people but you're rephrasing my point here. It's not that there was a 'concern' we'd lose a lottery pick, but rather the possibility should have given the Canucks extra leverage in negotiating a deal. Again my speculation, but everyone knew Colorado was in the market for a top six winger and I suspect when Tampa started shopping and named their price of a 1st and 3rd they were probably think of the Avs, who indeed would trade a 2nd and 3rd for Andre Burakovsky a few days later. No way to know for sure but it should be pretty obvious that a 1st and a 3rd from Vancouver would have a lot more value than a 1st and a 3rd from Colorado.

The prudent thing to have done would be to see if you could negotiate and get Miller without giving up the 1st, not just immediately pay the up front asking price. So much of what happens in the NHL is bartering and negotiating, so when someone says 'this is my price' they're usually setting it high and can be talked down. And while the Miller trade worked out well this time the fundamental issue and point I'm making is that this has been how Benning operates from day 1 and the vast majority of the time he's lost.

It's okay if a GM picks his spot and does this once in a while, for example Mike Gillis trading Schneider straight up for the Devils 1st and picking Horvat, but damn doing this almost every time for 6 years. The only time it seems Benning tries to negotiate down is if he no longer has the cap room or if someone else does the negotiating. This is not a good trait for a GM to have when it's time to transition into a regular playoff team and you have to properly pay your ELC's.

 

[Diversification]

You have laid your points out well. I appreciate your candor. Here is my interpretation of what you have written above:

Based upon what has unfolded for this team, you can trace the different elements coming together to result in a playoff berth. Several things were revealed this season that made the bet pay off early. Prospect progression is wildly non-linear, but the elements to improvement were already present (Pettersson and Boeser). In the end, this season made you challenge some of your preconceived notions, even if you do not credit Benning with the level of vision it would have taken to foresee its occurrence.

Does that sum up your position here? Please correct me where it does not.

Not really. The pieces in place prior to the Miller trade were: Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser, Tanev, Hughes and others. The non-linear development I was alluding to comes from the fact that younger players tend to improve relatively rapidly, and that their improvement can synergize with pieces that you add to that mix, provided that they're the right pieces.

This renders any attempt to model and project the improvement of a young core of players basically futile. You can't take their previous 4 years and perform a linear regression to predict their GF, GA, possession numbers and ultimately where they end up in the standings. Young star players can have a developmental trajectory that is difficult to predict and their capacity to synergize with added pieces further muddles prediction.

So here's where I've landed after assessing this season: There's a truism in hockey: build from the net out and build from the center out. This bears out with this team. It had a bonafide 1C, 1W, 2C, a true starting goalie. Add to that, the core pieces other than the goalie were young and on track to make rapid gains, provided they are put in a position to succeed. Added to those pieces were a 1D, another 1W, which pushed other pieces down the depth chart, which put them in a better position to succeed.

What I draw from this is that when you build correctly (through the middle and secure quality pieces from the net out), you should add quality pieces complementary pieces that coincide with the time frame when your young star players begin to break out. Don't wait until they have already, do it beforehand so that they become force multipliers for your stars (and your developing stars become force multipliers for your complementary pieces). That way you can maximize your window for contention while stars are still on ELCs. That is, a measured, incremental approach where you methodically add piece by piece and steadily move up the standings, may in fact be the wrong approach. I would further argue that this is the approach that many Benning skeptics favor.

Which leaves the seeming disconnect between not crediting Benning for having the foresight to predict this and still giving him credit for adding Miller at the time he did and for the price it cost: I credit Benning for having a rough idea where the team was in its development and pulling the trigger on the trade. Given the lottery protection clause on the 1st, he also wasn't sure whether it would pay off so soon. The reason it did was that QH is way better than basically anyone thought was possible.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Not really. The pieces in place prior to the Miller trade were: Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser, Tanev, Hughes and others. The non-linear development I was alluding to comes from the fact that younger players tend to improve relatively rapidly, and that their improvement can synergize with pieces that you add to that mix, provided that they're the right pieces.

This renders any attempt to model and project the improvement of a young core of players basically futile. You can't take their previous 4 years and perform a linear regression to predict their GF, GA, possession numbers and ultimately where they end up in the standings. Young star players can have a developmental trajectory that is difficult to predict and their capacity to synergize with added pieces further muddles prediction.

So here's where I've landed after assessing this season: There's a truism in hockey: build from the net out and build from the center out. This bears out with this team. It had a bonafide 1C, 1W, 2C, a true starting goalie. Add to that, the core pieces other than the goalie were young and on track to make rapid gains, provided they are put in a position to succeed. Added to those pieces were a 1D, another 1W, which pushed other pieces down the depth chart, which put them in a better position to succeed.

What I draw from this is that when you build correctly (through the middle and secure quality pieces from the net out), you should add quality pieces complementary pieces that coincide with the time frame when your young star players begin to break out. Don't wait until they have already, do it beforehand so that they become force multipliers for your stars (and your developing stars become force multipliers for your complementary pieces). That way you can maximize your window for contention while stars are still on ELCs. That is, a measured, incremental approach where you methodically add piece by piece and steadily move up the standings, may in fact be the wrong approach. I would further argue that this is the approach that many Benning skeptics favor.

Which leaves the seeming disconnect between not crediting Benning for having the foresight to predict this and still giving him credit for adding Miller at the time he did and for the price it cost: I credit Benning for having a rough idea where the team was in its development and pulling the trigger on the trade. Given the lottery protection clause on the 1st, he also wasn't sure whether it would pay off so soon. The reason it did was that QH is way better than basically anyone thought was possible.

Crediting Benning with a rough idea of the team's development timeline is granting him the ability of foresight. You're saying that he knew, without the actual impact of Miller and Hughes on the roster, that this team would make the playoffs within 2 years (taking on the brunt of the risk in the 2nd year).

I'm saying: How could he possibly have timed this progression when A) He was so bad at timing the team's development the prior 4 years and B) His pro-scouting has been bad in general and C) He had no idea that Hughes would be as good as he has been (as you've stated, no one did)?

Add to the above that the non-linear progression of Pettersson and Boeser is already accounted for in the team's make up heading into 2020. People were already projecting their totals because they had an NHL baseline. Funny thing is, nonlinear progression allows for a downturn in the short term too.

The veterans without non-linear progression expectations were well known. Horvat was here in 2019, as was Tanev. Reasonably, veterans + Pettersson + Boeser does not have one predicting 10 players having career years. That's what happened this year.

And even with that said, with all of their additions and supposed development, they were still 2 games away from finishing 21st overall. 2 games!

Final thoughts on this: I don't begrudge you for carrying a different take here. The data, and relatively optimistic projections thereof, did not align in the offseason. That's why people felt the Miller trade was a big risk. All of the reasonable projections were accounted for. And still, no one had them likely to make the playoffs this year, so how did Benning?

 

[RandV]

Which leaves the seeming disconnect between not crediting Benning for having the foresight to predict this and still giving him credit for adding Miller at the time he did and for the price it cost: I credit Benning for having a rough idea where the team was in its development and pulling the trigger on the trade. Given the lottery protection clause on the 1st, he also wasn't sure whether it would pay off so soon. The reason it did was that QH is way better than basically anyone thought was possible.

This is a rather odd/obscure thing to give credit for. Benning has 'predicted' future team success every off season, tt's his freakin job to deliver success, and if the team bombed again he's probably fired. Talk about a low bar for credit.

If you want to give him credit for something then at least make it for finally picking the right guy to target. Only took six years for the supposed 'talent whisperer' to make a legitimate impact pro-roster move.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Will the the Canucks make the playoffs in 2020..?....60-40 against.
Do the Canucks make the playoffs in the 2019-2020 season? (#383)

 

[sting101]

Benning is "the Dude"

 

[deckercky]

Will the the Canucks make the playoffs in 2020..?....60-40 against.
Do the Canucks make the playoffs in the 2019-2020 season? (#383)

Worth noting: that's 152 people who voted that the canucks would make the playoffs this season.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Worth noting: that's 152 people who voted that the canucks would make the playoffs this season.

Also worth noting that the majority did not think they would make the playoffs...

I largely avoid voting polls (I didn't vote in this one either) so it makes sense to me that I missed this one. I do not recall it. However, I do concede the point: Apparently, I lot of people thought the Canucks would make the playoffs, somehow, according to this poll.


I especially enjoyed the following rationale:

Voted yes because power of positive thinking.

I'm gonna vote yes but that's really more preference than expectation.

I voted yes...on expectations that EP will ascend into superstardom this season. Also, Brock will prove that last year was just due to his injury

Need everyone to stay healthy like 70+ games for everyone. Markstrom needs to keep his play up, and we need a lot of injuries for the other teams. So yes if the stars align

If our defence holds up health wise i can see wildcard as our best case scenerio.

Yes. Guaranteed playoff team in 2020 Playoff’s, baby! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

If Hughes plays like a prime Dan Boyle, yes.

Not to disparage these comments, but when faced with a post like the one below, it's really just no contest in terms of logic:

It's certainly possible, but it's going to require a massive improvement over this year, much more than the 10 point gulf between them and a playoff spot would suggest. In terms of goal differential, they need to improve by about 40 goals to be a bubble team, and it's might to be tough to improve (or even maintain) the GA side of the ledger. So the team probably needs to get about 40 more goals out of its lineup.

And as it stands, the team has only 4 forwards who managed 30+ points last season in its lineup to start the year, so that might be a tall order. And that's just to get to the level of a bubble team where they're roughly 50/50 to make the playoffs, never mind a solid playoff team or contender.

Do they manage it? I'd bet no. The team was still bottom 5 in most statistical categories and was only propped up by getting a lot of games to OT/SO and Markstrom playing out of his mind. I think they'll see an uptick in offense with Miller and improvements from Pettersson and Boeser, but the defense is still pretty bad and Edler and Tanev are a year older.

But hey, 152 people voted yes so...?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

His past three seasons were 56, 58 and 47 (pacing for 51). That last season was playing 3rd line minutes with PP2 time.

Those numbers are low end first liner numbers, and were expected to increase to the 55-60 if he got more offensive minutes (obviously nobody dreamed that he would blossom like he did).

His contract was quite good and had term, but Tampa had to move him because they're stacked.

J.t. Miller - Fantasy Hockey Game Logs, Advanced Stats and more - Frozen Tools

His most common 5on5 line mate was Steven Stamkos and he spent 3/4 of the season on PP1.

His PP time increased from the previous year.

 

[tyhee]

This is the JT Miller trade debate simplified:

Canucks were saving up a lot of money in an investment account. The longer they left the money in, the more interest they would have earned. Benning decided to cash out some of the money early to buy a lottery ticket. The lottery ticket hit and it hit big. We're all happy that our gamble paid off, but it's also fine for us to be critical of the decision to make that gamble in the first place.

I think most of us agree the Miller trade turned out to be a major jackpot and there's also no guarantee that we would have hit on our first round pick this year had we kept it. However, when you look at how you build a Cup winning team in the cap era it's more than just assembling the best collection of talent. It's equally important to time your window right and manage your cap properly (i.e. see Toronto for a perfect example).

To be more specific about the point you raise in your last paragraph, if the Canucks are no better than a playoff bubble team the next two seasons and don't make it past the 2nd round this season (they have to be betting underdogs in the first round right now) is that "major" jackpot worth hitting or would you rather have the future lottery tickets that you gave up for this one?

Most people on this forum consider the trade worked out well, but whether it really did depends on what one's goals are. If the ultimate goal was to acquire a player who played really well and really helped the 2019-20 team sneak into the playoffs, then the trade has already worked out well. If the goal was to build a really strong team, then we have to wait and see what happens over the next few years but it still looks to me most likely that the trade will not bring worthwhile benefit for the team in the long run.

Otoh, the trade has already worked out for the guy who made it. Benning's team made the playoffs and regardless of the future was leading the defending champs 2 games to 0. There is essentially no chance Aquilini will fire him based on the team's performance this season.

 

[Wildcarder]

To be more specific about the point you raise in your last paragraph, if the Canucks are no better than a playoff bubble team the next two seasons and don't make it past the 2nd round this season (they have to be betting underdogs in the first round right now) is that "major" jackpot worth hitting or would you rather have the future lottery tickets that you gave up for this one?

Most people on this forum consider the trade worked out well, but whether it really did depends on what one's goals are. If the ultimate goal was to acquire a player who played really well and really helped the 2019-20 team sneak into the playoffs, then the trade has already worked out well. If the goal was to build a really strong team, then we have to wait and see what happens over the next few years but it still looks to me most likely that the trade will not bring worthwhile benefit for the team in the long run.

Otoh, the trade has already worked out for the guy who made it. Benning's team made the playoffs and regardless of the future was leading the defending champs 2 games to 0. There is essentially no chance Aquilini will fire him based on the team's performance this season.

You're preaching to the choir. I was a huge fan of Miller as a fit for this team. He was the exact player we needed, great contract, good fit. But I recognized that it meant we were likely shortening our window as a contender even if the trade worked out perfectly from a hockey perspective (which it did). The other side of the argument I'll give credit to however is that maybe making this trade gives you a better chance to be a true contender even if it shortens the window because of cap considerations. Miller brings a lot to the team from a culture perspective that we've desperately needed after a few seasons of losing. You can't put all of that pressure on rookies and 4th line grinders to turn around the culture of a team that's been used to losing for too long.

 

[I am toxic]

If a window never opens, can it be short?

Or does it make a sound?

 

[F A N]

That could be the case for other people but you're rephrasing my point here. It's not that there was a 'concern' we'd lose a lottery pick, but rather the possibility should have given the Canucks extra leverage in negotiating a deal. Again my speculation, but everyone knew Colorado was in the market for a top six winger and I suspect when Tampa started shopping and named their price of a 1st and 3rd they were probably think of the Avs, who indeed would trade a 2nd and 3rd for Andre Burakovsky a few days later. No way to know for sure but it should be pretty obvious that a 1st and a 3rd from Vancouver would have a lot more value than a 1st and a 3rd from Colorado.

My apologies if I missed your point as you were only talking about the possibility that the pick was a lotto pick and not whether the Canucks overpaid. Anyhow, the Avs did trade for a 2nd line player. His name was Nazem Kadri. Burakovsky was coming off a a 12 goal 25 point season. The previous season he had a 12 goal 25 point season albeit in 56 games.

The prudent thing to have done would be to see if you could negotiate and get Miller without giving up the 1st, not just immediately pay the up front asking price. So much of what happens in the NHL is bartering and negotiating, so when someone says 'this is my price' they're usually setting it high and can be talked down. And while the Miller trade worked out well this time the fundamental issue and point I'm making is that this has been how Benning operates from day 1 and the vast majority of the time he's lost.

We are all basing this on brief comments Benning made aren't we? How often do we hear GMs say "Well they wanted this for him but we said no and managed to negotiate a lower price for him." That never happens. The only time we hear that an offer was rejected was when the deal fell through.

Trades made on draft day tend to involve picks in the current draft. I would speculate that Tampa first wanted 2020 picks but didn't get the deal they wanted. PK Subban, for example, was traded for two 2nds. Could the Canucks have worked out a deal involving the Hoglander pick? Probably, but I think Benning may have chosen to keep the pick instead and decided to give up a future 1st instead. I agree that Benning appears to have paid a big price for his trade acquisitions.

It's okay if a GM picks his spot and does this once in a while, for example Mike Gillis trading Schneider straight up for the Devils 1st and picking Horvat, but damn doing this almost every time for 6 years. The only time it seems Benning tries to negotiate down is if he no longer has the cap room or if someone else does the negotiating. This is not a good trait for a GM to have when it's time to transition into a regular playoff team and you have to properly pay your ELC's.

You make it sound like he has made a lot of trades. I think a better comparison would be the Ballard trade since our GM was the buyer in these scenarios.

 

[Bourdon]

J.t. Miller - Fantasy Hockey Game Logs, Advanced Stats and more - Frozen Tools

His most common 5on5 line mate was Steven Stamkos and he spent 3/4 of the season on PP1.

His PP time increased from the previous year.

Yeah, and? He's still right, he only averaged 14:40 a night. He put up 2.6pts/60, well into top 6 forward category with a cf% of 53.8.

You can question the risk behind a move like that, but the price paid was fine. When you consider the kind of garbage players that fetch a 1st at the trade deadline for example, and compare it to Miller, who was 26 and had 4 years left in his contract, in addition to the fact that the pick was protected, the price was fair.

There's plenty to shit on Benning with, the Miller trade shouldn't be one of them.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Yeah, and? He's still right, he only averaged 14:40 a night. He put up 2.6pts/60, well into top 6 forward category with a cf% of 53.8.

You can question the risk behind a move like that, but the price paid was fine. When you consider the kind of garbage players that fetch a 1st at the trade deadline for example, and compare it to Miller, who was 26 and had 4 years left in his contract, in addition to the fact that the pick was protected, the price was fair.

There's plenty to shit on Benning with, the Miller trade shouldn't be one of them.

I dont understand what you are replying to.