AV.

Ask @canuck73_3. He's the only who asked me to comment on Miller in a Bear thread.

You're attaching to emotions to my original post that don't exist. I made honest observations about this trade. This idea that I'm somehow upset, frustrated, disappointed, etc. are simply false and contrived ones from other people.

Arguably, yes. Why make a trade that you know won't improve your team or help you compete for a Stanley Cup?

But am I wrong here? Did Tampa Bay not improve once Miller was dealt? Would a history book not demonstrate this in plain sight? Likewise, would a history book show vast improvement for Vancouver or would it simply show "DNQ" beside each season, bar one in 2019/20, before Miller and after Miller?

Of course. There are so many factors that could have contributed to winning the cup outside of Miller. I have never attempted to say that Miller was the reason for losing, much less him being gone as the reason for winning. But, factually, the team Tampa Bay had with Miller improved once he was off the team. No malice against the player, just literally how it worked out and what it would tell you in the history books. Just like our team in 2009 with Mats Sundin was actually not as good as our team in 2011 with Victor Oreskovich.

How? These are simply facts. Check the cup rosters. It's all there in plain sight.

Not at all. I'm just reporting the facts. With Miller, Tampa Bay did not win the Cup. Without Miller, they did, and in fact, used the asset they got for him to acquire a player that had contributions in both wins (Blake Coleman). I'm not saying that Blake Coleman is directly responsible, and I'm not saying JT Miller was responsible for previous failure, but clearly this trade worked out as intended because it allowed Tampa Bay to reinvest in a new area and finally reach new heights in the playoffs. Vancouver got a great player, but didn't really make improvements as a team. That's not at all on Miller (it's 100% on management), but this is how the trade has worked out for both sides. One side won it all (twice), the other didn't really get anywhere. In a history book, everything that I'm saying here would be reported as such.

Explain. Do rebuilders not make the moves they do to ultimately win a cup? Ultimately (key word here), did Vancouver set out to acquire Miller to potentially compete for a Stanley Cup, or was it simply to see if he could score 100 points? Everything I have said makes sense. One day you will see I was telling you the truth.

Hey now, no need for hostility. I know you're better than that

When did I say it was on Miller? I simply pointed out that Tampa Bay, as a team with Miller, went out in R1 as a PT winner. Then, without Miller, won the cup twice. I'm not saying there is a direct correlation, so any thought of that would be "your words, not mine".

Yes, this is how sports work in the grand scheme of things. We can segment things further and look at micro-wins (i.e trading for a productive player) but the main goal for each team is to win the final trophy. We don't award Stanley Cups, or World Series, or Super Bowls, for having productive players. We don't have the Art Ross playoffs involving the top 16 scorers, do we now? This should be clear enough.

But the team that was building didn't get anywhere new that they weren't already after this deal. We know this because three years on, the Canucks are back to being outside of the playoffs, which is where they were before getting Miller. Tampa Bay, on the other hand, reached a new height after this deal. These are just facts,

We watch hockey to see which team can hoist the Stanley Cup by the season's end. That's the only thing that matters. What does it matter how many points a player scores? Did FLA or CGY get trophies last season for having players above 100 points?

Yeah, they did. Winnipeg got a great player, a captain at that, but they've never made it past the 3rd round, much less have any sustained post-season success. Boston were clear winners.

Did it really help Vancouver? Did it make them a Stanley Cup winning team? No Did it even make them a legitimate playoff team? Maybe looked as much in the first year (2019/20), but certainly did not after that. It's good for Miller that he's been productive here, but he hasn't made the team better. And again, Tampa Bay used the asset they got from the deal to add a player and that player contributed to two successful cup runs. Yes, both sides benefitted in some way, but the team that won two cups benefitted tenfold. There's nothing wrong saying that because it's just the truth.

They got a productive player, yes. Nothing beyond that. The name of the game for 32 teams is to win the Stanley Cup, however. The team who accomplishes that is the sole winner when it's all said and done.

No, I'm using facts.

I do with agree with this to an extent. However, the correct answer is that nobody should be antagonizing anybody about their opinions. That falls solely on the one side who swears they're positive.

We don't know. What we do know is they had Miller and got swept with him to Columbus as PT winners in 2018/19. Then, they didn't have Miller, used the asset they got from his trade to get Coleman, and then won two cups. Is it a coincidence? Who knows. But factually, they didn't win with and then did win twice without him.

Idk. Who cares? People care about what I have to say and get drawn to it, I guess. Moth to a flame type beat.

Tampa Bay won two cups with the pick they acquired from Vancouver (traded for Coleman) Vancouver won one and a half playoffs rounds in 3 years with Miller. Pretty good deal for Tampa Bay, I'd say.

Sure. But that's where patience and education comes in. Something something insanity somethin something over and over again.

I'm just pointing out the flaw in logic. These moves have been happening for almost a decade now, and we don't seem to learn from them. Not just management, but fans too.

Lol provoke? Because I called the franchise the dumbest one in the league? That I said we should have claimed this type of player on waivers rather than trading for him? Unless you work for the management, you, nor anybody here, should have any reason to take offence from a post like this, especially when I didn't even call out anybody specific. Believe me, there's tons of room in this world for people to be empathetic toward one another and be mindful of invalidating feelings, but this is not one of them.

Maybe then, the idea is to take better quality shots instead of those in the dark?