wallstreetamigo Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Markstrom wants to play in the NHL. That is understandable. Unfortunately he has been wildly inconsistent at the NHL level and it is not only because he was on a bad team in Florida. He has suffered some injuries too. But having watched him play a fair bit he lacks confidence and over-commits an awful lot. His style needs to be cleaned up a lot if he wants to be a consistent NHL level goalie. This kid had a ton of promise a few years back and was widely regarded as the top goalie in the world not in the NHL. But his stock had fallen considerably by the time he got to Vancouver. There are big holes in his game. He could certainly use a team committing to getting his game back to where it needs to be. Unfortunately for him, that should very likely be in the AHL again which he doesn't want. But if he wants to be an NHL starter some day he needs to take a step back and get his development and his game back on track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure fan Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Markstrom for Luongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan99 Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 how do you quote someone like you've done above, sorry new here!!! Ta da! (little box at the bottom) I'm new too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I mentioned in the Kane thread that Lack really makes more sense for Winnipeg. History there, more NHL ready for the team with maybe the worst starter in the league (heck his numbers are worse than many of the backups). Would give Markstrom time with RM as a backup and a chance to see if all that talent can be honed into something special. Lack on the other hand is further along and would give us a better chance of making the playoffs this year as we would likely be more competitive in the games he plays. Winnipeg has some nice pieces as well, big forwards especially. Toronto seems like another good possibility and seems likely to be the team that needs to move something first. Edmonton should be interested, I just don't believe in that tandem. I wonder if any of the teams that need to dump cap are interested, Boston I'm looking at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nergish Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I like Eddie Lack, and feel he'll be roughly as good as Miller next year, but if Markstrom has more upside, why not move Eddie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adios_Kes Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I'm still bewildered by the Miller signing, but that ship has sailed. With that said, trading Markstrom makes no sense. If Miller is truly here to 'help Lack develop' as many have said surely Lack will have 'developed' before the age of 30 (when Miller's contract ends) and if he doesn't by then he never will. If he does, that leaves us with a 6 million dollar mentor/backup. How is that wise cap spending? In addition, we would have another goalie controversy. Keeping Markstrom makes sense because his development should be complete later than Lack and he'll be ready just in time (at 27, even that is pretty late...) for Miller to be done. What's more, Markstrom's trade value I would argue is less than Lack's, since Lack outplayed Lou last year and Markstrom has been a bust so far, and is only a (long shot?) prospect. Lack has proven himself. He could be dangled as a number one guy. Still, though Markstrom is a risk, his potential ceiling is higher than Lack's, which means keeping him is worth a lot more than giving him up for nothing. Meanwhile we have guys like Erickson or Canata (sp?) who could probably do a decent job as a backup should Markstrom not succeed at that role. None of this makes any sense to me, it just doesn't. The Miller signing makes sense because it instantly makes this team more competitive. Lack only "outplayed" Lou for small stretches because he could play a game or so, then go back to work with Rollie not to mention the fact that he didn't have the pressure of being "the guy". He didn't look very good after Lou left. As far as Lack's age & Miller's contract goes Miller can always be traded, it's not like he has Luongo type contract that makes him untradeable. Plus Benning has already shown an ability to pull the trigger & do it quickly. All that being said I agree about trading Lack, although I would consult Rollie about Markstrom's ability to reach his potential. I trust this management team. & lastly, goalie controversy? Not gonna happen, First Gillis is gone, second none of our current goalies have ridiculous "lifetime contracts" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combover Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 everyone assumes Lack is the goaltender Benning wants but the reality is when Millers contract is up LAck will be 30. i think when they drafted demko it was clear miller is actually the bridge to the true rebuild when the young guys we are getting today will actually be NHL ready.markstrom or lack it really doesn't matter who is moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Much of what you're saying is true, but there is more to it. AV chose to play Shcneids in the LA series, if I recall correctly, and that instigated a year and a half of Lou waiting to be out. That occurred as a result of his play, not a result of the cap situation. The cap situation just made Lou immovable. He had a modified no trade as well, more or less (remember the 'five teams' fiasco?) but due to his contract, couldn't be moved. That of course is said and done, but there are similarities. If the plan is indeed to develop Lack, or at least provide him with a backup/mentor in Miller, then why does Miller command 6 million. If Lack outplays him, who will take on Miller at 6 million? I suppose his short contract can makes him more appealing than Lou, but still, nobody wanted Lou at a similar price. I don't see any team wanting Miller at 6, especially as he gets older. I disagree. The controversy was a result of the inability to move Luongo because of the term (and the penalties the NHL applied to it after the fact) A year and a half of dragging Lu's name around for a trade was offensive. If he could have been traded as soon as he asked, there would be no controversy and Schneider would be the Canucks #1. Either way, Lack would still be a backup. I don't see the plan for Miller as a backup/mentor for Lack. He will be the #1 and Lack will get 25 games. I could see Lack being ready within 2 years, by which time Miller will be traded (likely at deadline in his 2nd year). As you've pointed out, his short contract (by that time, only a year remaining), will be appealing to a team that needs a good goalie going into the playoffs. Regardless, he doesn't owe the Canucks anything (no player was traded for him), so they don't need a big return. They get a nice fat $6M under cap. Again, it wasn't Lu's cap hit that no team wanted; it was the horribad contract. Miller is still considered a very good goalie by most and the term of his contract fits very well into the team's future plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkyfresh Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Unless of course Markstrom doesn't want to keep going back to the AHL and has already asked for Benning to try and move him... Which he has. He hasn't earned an NHL job yet and if no team wants him, he doesn't have much of a choice does he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tebeaune Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I agree mostly. The Canucks need to remain competitive in this market or they will get roasted by fans and media alike plus young players need to be developed in a winning environment (see Edmonton for the alternative). So they bridge with players like Vrbata and Miller to buy a couple of years. Benning and Linden are smart and they know what they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adios_Kes Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 People need to stop talking about a 'potential goalie controversy'. Lack was a rookie goalie last year and was thrown into a dreadful position when Lu was traded. He did his best, but was clearly not ready. Look how long it took Schneids to become a #1. The controversy was not created because Schneids improved his game; it was because of Lu's contract and the way the NHL rewrote an signed document. What with the drop in salary cap and the NHL's bush league actions; Lu became near impossible to trade. In the Miller case, he has a modified NTC and his contract is only for 3 years. Lack will be given lots of opportunities to develop his game and if he earns the #1 spot at some point, Miller can be traded. Miller doesn't have to bring back a good return, as he doesn't owe the Nucks anything. Consider his salary as 'free floating salary cap space. The Canucks are entering 'cap friendly' times, as young players make the jump and vets contracts run out. I am sorry about Marks though. I hope that he is traded to a team that will be committed to developing him properly. Exactly! I cannot figure out why so many people think having several good goalies & goalie prospects can be a bad thing lol. Miller, Lack, Markstrom (for now), Erickson, Cannata, Demko. This team's goaltending situation is outstanding, for now & the future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFBR392 Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 From our perspective, I think Markstrom is worth more to us to try and develop than he is to trade at this point. I'm sure he wants to play in the NHL now, but thems the breaks. I think he's got the potential to be a good starting goalie by the time Miller's contract is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred65 Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Markstrom it's fair to say has been a disapointment in the NHL...Florida basically jettisoned him in the Luongo deal. He may improve..but he may not...you don't gamble on those odds...bad business. Miller gets hurt and you only have a Florida outcast to replace him with...you're willing to throw away all the good you've done and have Markstrom as the fill in...not a chance...that's why Benning is talking to other teams hoping he can trade him before the season starts and he gets to be reviewed by other teams. It'll be Lack and Miller and there will I suspect be a progression from one to the other during the three year contract Miller has......think Thomas and Rask. Markstrom couldn't make the NHL lets keep this in mind....Lack has and will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 From our perspective, I think Markstrom is worth more to us to try and develop than he is to trade at this point. I'm sure he wants to play in the NHL now, but thems the breaks. I think he's got the potential to be a good starting goalie by the time Miller's contract is up. This. He has the potential to be a very good #1 goaltender in the NHL we should restart with Markstorm. I would take the risk and waive him, if he does make it through then demote Cannata, play Markstorm as the #1 in Utica. If he does well, move out Lack or Miller for Markstorm then get Markstorm in there playing #1. Hopefully this process would take about 1-2 years and if many things go good for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksCup2018 Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I like Eddie Lack, and feel he'll be roughly as good as Miller next year, but if Markstrom has more upside, why not move Eddie? Do people saying Markstrom has more upside than Lack ignore how Lack played vs Markstrom??? What game are you people watching i am at a loss at you people making such comments. Really what are you watching? Its not the same sport as me, clearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksCup2018 Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 CDC 1. Player B sucks 2. Rumour that we're going to Trade player B 3. Player B is amazing! Trade player A!!!! Trade player A!!! CDC logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c-a-n-u-c-k-s Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I hope he goes to WPG but I can't see Benning wanting Kane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senpai Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I'm pretty sure this kid has like 0 value..Even if you packaged him, you're not getting much in return for him.. He's kinda just a throw in for fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustavo Fring Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 CDC 1. Player B sucks 2. Rumour that we're going to Trade player B 3. Player B is amazing! Trade player A!!!! Trade player A!!! CDC logic Lump logic = idiotically lumping all cdcers into one group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksCup2018 Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Lump logic = idiotically lumping all cdcers into one group. reported! take care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.