TheRussianRocket. Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/686111The Vancouver Canucks aren't necessarily looking to trade one of Eddie Lack or Jacob Markstrom before the 2015 NHL Trade Deadline, but they're open to listening. "(Markstrom has) gone down (to the AHL) with a real good attitude, he's worked hard, he's played really well," Canucks general manager Jim Benning said of Markstrom, the club's third-string goalie, in an appearance on TSN Radio 1040 in Vancouver on Wednesday night. "(Canucks minor league goalie coach) Dan Cloutier has worked with him, (Canucks goalie coach Rollie Melanson) has been down a couple times and worked with him," continued the Canucks executive. "He's had a real good season. He's been patient with us and he knows he just has to keep working hard and improving his game, and he'll get his opportunity at some point." Could that point come sooner than later? Potentially, if the Canucks decide to deal Lack. Lack, 27, has served as Ryan Miller's backup this season. In 14 appearances he's amassed a 3-6-3 win/loss record while posting a modestly below league average save percentage of .912. While Benning indicated that he's not necessarily looking to move Lack, he did suggest that he's open to listening. "Eddie's been real good for us too, so I don't want to put that out there," Benning responded when asked directly about a prospective Lack trade. "Eddie's played - the games he's got in - he's been excellent for us. Having said that if a team comes along and we can make our team better, we'll definitely look at something," Benning continued. "I don't know which guy it is yet," referring to whether or not he'd look to move Markstrom or Lack, "but if we can add a really good young prospect or something - we'll look at it." Regardless of what Vancouver does at the trade deadline, they're reaching a point where they'll be forced to make a decision on which of their depth goaltenders to keep long-term. Lack is signed through this season and next two a one-way deal that carries a $1.15 million salary cap hit. Markstrom meanwhile is a pending restricted free agent, and he'll be expensive to qualify as a result of his $1.4 million 2014-15 salary (source: NHLNumber.com). So if Vancouver is unwilling to tender a $1.4 million offer to Markstrom sby the June 30 deadline - an offer that Markstrom would surely accept - they'll lose his restricted free agent rights. With Miller signed through 2017 to an expensive deal and the Canucks poised to have $800,000 in retained salary from last year's Roberto Luongo trade on the book until forever, the club can't really afford to keep both Lack and Markstrom on the payroll next season. Whether the two Swedish-born goaltenders finish the season with the club or not, it seems structurally unlikely that they'll both be reporting to Vancouver for Canucks training camp this upcoming fall. As for exchanging a depth goaltender for a "really good young prospect," that's a tough deal to make. Just ask Vancouver's former management team. If the value in return is fair, I don't mind. Have Miller/Lack/Markstrom/Demko. Lack and Markstrom share almost indentical value except that one has shown what he's capable at the NHL level and the other hasn't been given the chance. If I'm JB, I'd prefer to trade Lack (even though he's a fan fav) because we know what he upper limit is - a 1B/2A goalie, nothing wrong, but doesn't have the level to be a trusted starter. Markstrom however is tearing up the AHL so I see more potential there. Either way, nice to see we have a GM how see's an over abundance of goalies and willing to make a trade to help in other areas of the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Our obvious MO is...DEAL'EM BOTH! :^) Anyone remember the name of that Boston Coll/Uni?(huge kid) gt who attended our prospects camp? Bet he'd sign with us if slots opened up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Haha oh no Cloutier is our second goalie coach?? Hahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Haha oh no Cloutier is our second goalie coach?? Hahahaha He was actually really good with his mechanics. I'd be much more worried if he was the team's psychologist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGCanuck Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 About time we got serious about trading a goaltender. I think one of these two will be gone by Canada Day. I am impressed the Canucks have strengthened their depth at this position. It seems for too many years we had one above average goalie and another below average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Trading Lack in my eyes is the better way to go with than trading Markstrom. There is a two year difference between Lack and Markstrom. Markstrom can still turn things around, and that's fine seeing as that goalies take a helluva long time to grow to their projection. But is this really new news? It was said/reported before the season that Benning will look or has looked at dealing either goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 While Benning indicated that he's not necessarily looking to move Lack, he did suggest that he's open to listening. In other words, its just like any other day with any other player. No news here folks. /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Barzal Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Markstrom pls. I highly doubt Miller stays here and I don't want to put my faith in Markstrom turning it around at the NHL level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 It makes too much sense to package Lack for a top six forward or top four defenceman since his value is there right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outsiders Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Lack for a 2nd if Dubnik(sp) fetched a 3rd then Eddie is an Easy Second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outsiders Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 It makes too much sense to package Lack for a top six forward or top four defenceman since his value is there right now. Overvaluing our goalies a little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So, then business as usual? Considering Benning's line from day one has been "We'll make a trade if it improves the club", this isn't really news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Overvaluing our goalies a little How? I can guarantee you Benning won't trade Lack for a pick unless it's a first rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Lack probably has more value, BUT...I'd rather see Markstrom be traded. We know what that Lack can play at the NHL level. His numbers this year aren't great, but he hasn't had a lot of support in those games. He played well for us last season after Lu was dealt and even before he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Every good GM will move any player if it can benefit their team. Hence, every player is on the trading block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awalk Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Lack for a 2nd if Dubnik(sp) fetched a 3rd then Eddie is an Easy Second Why not just wait and do that at the draft then? 2nd round pick isn't going to score any goals for us down the stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleShield Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Lack + 1st for a better 1st. Mitch Marner or Zack Werenski will be ours! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrippledCanuck Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 He was actually really good with his mechanics. I'd be much more worried if he was the team's psychologist Anger Management therapist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Interestingly, I'd suggest RM's recent form, as well as league 'tender injuries, has made this an ever-increasing possibilty. Would be very sweet if we could use our gt-depth to help top-up our prospect depth, especially for say, young D. There seems a glut of strong, young gt prospects, a coupla' yrs away(eg:Vasilevsky, Gibson, Fucale, et al...), yet for 'developed', & ready prospects, there may be a relative dearth, where we have the market cornered. If so, (& offers show it's fact), exploit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Lack + 1st for a better 1st. Mitch Marner or Zack Werenski will be ours! If there was a significant difference between what we'd get through our end of year placement and the pick we'd get through this trade, then I'd be all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.