THERETOOL Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I wish we could hire gillis again so that we could fire him . #ahole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobopan Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I think they'll try and sneak him down to the farm but i suspect some team will want to take a chance on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckler87 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Trade Markstrom for Evander Kane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I don't think Markstrom has a lot of marketability around the NHL. If he's lost on waivers, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustABandwagoner Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 The Ryan Miller signing (agree with it or not) has made one of Lack and Markstrom expandable. The idea of a package deal to the Jets is interesting and they are one of few teams that really need better goaltending. I think Lack has more value and I think Markstrom has similar upside so Lack makes more sense to be moved. Add Hansen to players that make sense for Winnipeg and you have the start of a package for one of their players. The Canucks need offense. Lack, Hansen, and Shinkaruk for Kane? Whats with you and people dealing Shinkaruk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobopan Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I don't think Markstrom has a lot of marketability around the NHL. If he's lost on waivers, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Certainly not a big deal for us but bittersweet considering he was a large part of the package from the Luongo deal and the potential is there he could turn out to be the goalie he once was hyped to be which would sting even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 For those wondering how he was went to the AHL last year it's because he was waiver exempt. Once you pass 4 years after your first contract you are waiver eligible. He passed that at the end of the 2014 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks35 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 He's going to quietly sob into his cornflakes for a few days. Then he's going to get really determined and show up in camp and outplay Miller so badly that the Canucks have NO CHOICE but to hand him the #1 starting position. It will leave us no choice but to trade Miller to a team for a 1st round pick in 2015. That team will badly crash and burn missing the playoffs by a mile and will magically win the draft lottery, gifting us McDavid next summer........ How's that for a story line?? Mike Gillis is that you?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesman60 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I would say he goes to Utica, but i think i heard he is on a 1 way contract. If so then he will probably be put on waivers and be back up for another team. And that would suck cause then we basically traded Luongo for Shawn Matthias Stop fretting about a player who didn't want to be in Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangelos Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Whats with you and people dealing Shinkaruk. McCann should be the odd man out if we're thinking of dealing a top prospect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynideSnipe Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 The Ryan Miller signing (agree with it or not) has made one of Lack and Markstrom expandable. The idea of a package deal to the Jets is interesting and they are one of few teams that really need better goaltending. I think Lack has more value and I think Markstrom has similar upside so Lack makes more sense to be moved. Add Hansen to players that make sense for Winnipeg and you have the start of a package for one of their players. The Canucks need offense. Lack, Hansen, and Shinkaruk for Kane? Trade the goalie that is supposed to be our #1 starter sooner or later, a scoring 4th liner and a top prospect for an under performing player with a terrible attitude? Yeah, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmon Arm Canuck Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 It's all about depth. Let Markstrom, Lack and Ericksson battle it out for the back-up job and then look at a trade when the season is going to start. Seeing how GM JB has started his tenure in respect to trading, methinks he won't hesitate to strike a deal if one is close to being there oppose to sitting and letting things feaster like the previous regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Last I heard was Markstrom was on a 1-way deal and can't get sent to the minors without clearing waivers. Last I heard 1 way deals have nothing to do with waivers. But no, both Lack and Markstrom are eligible for waivers. I'm not completely sure why people seem to think Markstrom won't clear waivers. After all, he was playing for the Panthers AHL team when he was acquired, so he must have cleared waivers when he was sent down then. And it's not like he's done anything to make him any more attractive to other teams since then. He only becomes waiver eligible this year. He didn't have to clear waivers to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustABandwagoner Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 McCann should be the odd man out if we're thinking of dealing a top prospect Agreed. Is Gaunce considered a top prospect? I would deal him in a flash. I dont think Markstrom will clear waivers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Mike Gillis is that you?? How did you guess??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Hellfish Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Well, if Benning and the Jets have been working on a potential Kane deal, Markstrom would be involved in a package, as the Jets need a backup to challenge Pavs. I hope this was accidental, because that would make it even better! Now I have the Elton John song stuck in my head, along with the dream of us getting Evander Kane for a deal involving Markstrom. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tribaljohn Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 AHL or bust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 The Ryan Miller signing (agree with it or not) has made one of Lack and Markstrom expandable. The idea of a package deal to the Jets is interesting and they are one of few teams that really need better goaltending. I think Lack has more value and I think Markstrom has similar upside so Lack makes more sense to be moved. Add Hansen to players that make sense for Winnipeg and you have the start of a package for one of their players. The Canucks need offense. Lack, Hansen, and Shinkaruk for Kane? I'm probably in the minority here but as much as I like lack and think he's a solid goalie I that that's all he will be just a solid middle of the road goalie. He plays position very well but other then that I don't think he has great skill. Markstrom could be the better goalie or he could be a flop, he has much more potential to be an elite tender. If I were the nucks I take the gamble and go with markstrom to see how he pans out because you get a better return off lack and have more potential with markstrom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Can't we roll out 13 forwards, 7 defencemans and 3 goaltenders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I doubt Markstrom would clear waivers so one has to assume there will be a trade. He still young as a tender. Should be a limited market. On the other hand if we have a to be of cap space there is nothing against carrying 3 goalies. But yea something is bound to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.