Zero connection? You can't say that with any conviction. At best you can speculate that if you change what was, what is will still be as good or better.
Your original post was speculation. It's something you have no hope of proving correct.
To say that Miller was brought in to help rebuild Markstrom's game, and then to suppose that this plan succeeded brilliantly, takes many leaps in logic that you are not prepared to ground in any sense of reality.
Miller was one of the best goalies of his era, and a consummate professional. Maybe bringing in a less proven option gives Markstrom the same cover to rebuild his game in the AHL and as a backup. Or, considering the Luongo/Schneider/Lack love triangle this organization had just exited, I'd say it's more likely we enter another goalie controversy and Markstrom has pressure on his shoulders from day 1 and he's probably back in Europe by now.
You start by entertaining possibilities, which is good, but then you end with a hard conclusion based on no evidence, which is bad. Are you following your rationale here?
That's the thing with bringing in Miller...it took all pressure off Markstrom and gave him a couple years to just focus on becoming the NHL goalie he was projected to be. If you think being in a competition or a 1a/1b situation would have been better for Markstrom at that point, rather than being sheltered from the bright lights while getting to watch the practice habits and pre/post/during game habits of a borderline HOFer, then you're just wrong.
You have nothing to say that either situation is right or wrong. Absolutely nothing.
As for "would have won a playoff round" doubt it but thank gawd that didn't happen. Would likely mean no Boeser, and I really doubt your scenario sees Markstrom develop the way he has. Benning wanted a veteran bridge in net, and that was Miller. Speculate all you want about how that decision cost us a playoff run (LOL!) but second guessing Benning on how he has handled the net -- given the organization is now Markstrom/Demko/Dipietro deep at the position, and has received assets for Lack and Nilsson under Benning -- is a bit hard to take as more than agenda.
MS does speculate on the playoff run. That goes too far, I agree. However, his premise is actually one where the best cap utility is employed to create the best team possible. If Markstrom + Lack get close to a reasonable split in 2014-15, then Miller is rendered unnecessary and that money is obviously better spent on a skater. This is completely logical to suppose. The disagreement is in projecting Markstrom/Lack/Griess.
So to be clear, you feel if you just change everything, everything will end up exactly the same. Just because 3 years later Markstrom looks like he has emerged as a bonafide NHL starter, doesn't mean he was ready for the role 3 years ago. I'm a bit surprised to see this from you, your logic is usually sound.
Regardless, years ago we had Miller. Lack fizzled out pretty quick after leaving Vancouver. I'll take Miller + the 2 picks returned for Lack + Markstrom we see today. You can have whatever is behind door #3...you never know, it might even be a boat!
I think you believe that you are being logical here alternate, but you're getting trapped in False Cause and the Texas Sharpshooter biases as well as presenting an overall Confirmation Bias. Here's what you're doing:
1. You are assuming the cause of Markstrom's play right now as being tied to the acquisition of Miller. There is nothing in studies that suggest this type of attribution. It's purely anecdotal.
2. Next, you're finding a pattern to fit a presumption. In this case, Markstrom being waived before, when Miller was added, to now, when he's playing the best hockey of his career and Miller is gone. This is the texas sharpshooter fallacy, whereby you are isolating two distinct data sets to fit your presumption when you don't know what Markstrom/Lack/Greiss would have done had Miller not have been signed (the first data set). Nor could you have grounded what Markstrom would have done now prior to the start of the season (which breaks your second data set).
3. You are obviously favouring things that confirm your existing beliefs. You pose, mockingly, that the alternative to not signing Miller would not have resulted in Markstrom being what he is now. You also have no way of knowing and/or proving this claim.
In the end, you're guessing at both ends and assuming your guess is the correct one. That is illogical.
