elvis15 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Yeah, but look how good Lack is doing! I mean, he is becoming the guy we wanted - nay, needed - last year. I'd rather let him continue to develop with us than some high-rated prospect who could be a bust. So we keep Lack but sit him behind Miller? Or start Lack and then sit Miller as our $6M backup? You can see why I'm wondering if you've thought that through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 But moving on to news that isn't really news: Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger 18m As early as next week BU's Matt O'Connor will begin an NHL tour with stops in Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Buffalo and maybe NYR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 So we keep Lack but sit him behind Miller? Or start Lack and then sit Miller as our $6M backup? You can see why I'm wondering if you've thought that through. Honestly, I say we trade Miller or qualify Markstrom. If we qualify Markstrom, some team like the Oilers or Philadelphia is bound to take a flyer on him, and we get compensation for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Honestly, I say we trade Miller or qualify Markstrom. If we qualify Markstrom, some team like the Oilers or Philadelphia is bound to take a flyer on him, and we get compensation for it. I suspect that the Canucks will at the very least qualify Markstrom, but will likely sign him to a short term (2 years?) deal. Miller will likely not be traded unless he first goes to Benning and says he wants to be moved. It then becomes a question of how much Miller's $6 million in caphit is worth to the Canucks, and how much another team is willing to pay to take it on. There's also the question of a trade partner. SJ is the obvious choice, but do they trade for Miller while they still have Thornton's contract, or do they even want Miller in the first place? How about Thornton+ (say a propect or mid-lvl pick) for Miller and a cap dump contract? The Canucks get a 1C/2C for 2 years with a bit more caphit. \ Kassian or Virtanen on the right side, Jensen on the left and Thornton in the middle... Or not. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Honestly, I say we trade Miller or qualify Markstrom. If we qualify Markstrom, some team like the Oilers or Philadelphia is bound to take a flyer on him, and we get compensation for it. Trading Miller (and his contract) is easier said than done, but would be my preference. But if we don't trade Miller and qualify Markstrom how does it solve the issue? We'd be right back to the point where we'd have to trade Markstrom but might be facing a very low return for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Trading Miller (and his contract) is easier said than done, but would be my preference. But if we don't trade Miller and qualify Markstrom how does it solve the issue? We'd be right back to the point where we'd have to trade Markstrom but might be facing a very low return for him. If we qualify Markstrom and keep Miller, he will not sign unless there is guarantee of trade. Like I've said before, the Oilers, the Sharks, or the Flyers would be the top teams to take Markstrom. The Canucks would decline to match, and we would get draft picks in return. Ideally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks Curse Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 But moving on to news that isn't really news: Buffalo and Edmonton are awful cities with train wreck teams, it would be a real bad move to sign with those guys. Maybe McJesus saves in buff but still they need more than just him even if he is Crosby good, they need a few more years as last overall If I was him is take real hard look at the Canucks with how they developped Schneider, lack and markstrom and think hey- it looks like they know what they are doing there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nergish Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 It sounds like a lot of us are hoping for Demko to be our franchise goaltender, and clearly out of all the goalies in our system he has the highest ceiling. I love the way he plays, love the attitude, big frame, etc. and I really can see it. But Lack is really not that young. Much like Schneider at the time of the trade, his time is NOW. Miller could likely repeat exactly what he did this season next year, which is fine. Good even. But the team really seems to be behind Eddie right now. Him as a mentor for Demko really makes more sense from an age perspective. Lack is only going to improve, Miller's best days are behind him. It's a tough choice, but I think Eddie's done brilliantly to make a case for himself either here or elsewhere (for a decent return coming back our way). But yeah, O'Connor would give us even more options. He actually reminds me a lot of Demko in net anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 If we qualify Markstrom and keep Miller, he will not sign unless there is guarantee of trade. Like I've said before, the Oilers, the Sharks, or the Flyers would be the top teams to take Markstrom. The Canucks would decline to match, and we would get draft picks in return. Ideally. Yeah, that still doesn't make sense. It's not an offer sheet where we could decline to match or Markstrom has a contract just because we made the qualifying offer. If Markstrom doesn't like the QO because we can't guarantee a trade (or it's just not enough since it'd be about $1.3M), he can just decline it. We'd then have to try and negotiate a deal or go to arbitration to have a deal in place for next year. But then if we sign him (however we end up at that) we'd still have to trade him, again where we started if no one wants to offer much of worth. I doubt anyone would make an offer sheet to him though, at least of any significant value. If he doesn't take a $1.3M QO then I doubt he'd accept an offer sheet for less than the $1.6+M compensation level and I'm not as sure someone would offer that much for him and risk giving up a second as the required compensation. Maybe the team offering would think it's a very late 2nd rounder, but would they have offered a similar pick in a straight up trade? And I don't know that any of those three teams would feel that much more comfortable to trust Markstrom going into next year even as a backup since they'd have to give a 2nd or similar to get him. If they got him for less or free off waivers they could take that chance, but if he's not ready they don't have a strong enough starter they'd be happy to let him develop over any of their other goalies they already have. But we're going in circles on this one. If we get O'Connor (which I'm not sure we do) I think it's even more likely we trade one of Lack or Miller. If we don't get O'Connor it's a slightly better chance we can look to move Markstrom regardless of return but I'm not sure we get the offers we'd like for him at this point. Buffalo and Edmonton are awful cities with train wreck teams, it would be a real bad move to sign with those guys. Maybe McJesus saves in buff but still they need more than just him even if he is Crosby good, they need a few more years as last overall If I was him is take real hard look at the Canucks with how they developped Schneider, lack and markstrom and think hey- it looks like they know what they are doing there! Meh, it's hard to say. Remembering Schultz took the chance to get more playing time in Edmonton over a lesser spot with a better team in Vancouver, and being aware that O'Connor could do the same to get an NHL spot perhaps. I'm not saying he pushes for big minutes right away, and maybe he even is fine starting in the AHL in the right situation, but I don't know that he'd pick a team where he'd be down the depth chart for 2+ years for sure. Ottawa has a lesser team but strong goaltending, the Rangers have both a strong team and a top flight goalie. Calgary clearly has options even with Hiller and an improving team, much the same with Buffalo since they could become good soon enough although Lindback has played well enough. Edmonton's issues have less to do with their goalies though since it's not so much Scrivens' and Fasth's fault as overall disfunction. Canucks could be a real option, along with I think Calgary and Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleShield Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 For the same reason that everyone here wants us to keep Lack, he is the most significant trading chip we have. I'd love if he stayed, but a strong playoff showing and he will command a mid 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Why the freaking heck would you want to trade Lack???? Miller, yes. Markstrom, yes. Lack?? He's the best personality we've had in a goalie since Luongo, and he's got the makings of a good, if not great, #1 goalie. And you want to trade him to Edmonton? Or SJ? Or Carolina? ** Luongo personality got better later, he had problems with the media in the beginning here. I agree with you, would rather keep Lack, Miller and his cap hit has to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 ** Luongo personality got better later, he had problems with the media in the beginning here. I agree with you, would rather keep Lack, Miller and his cap hit has to go. I'd be more than happy to "Ehrhoff" Miller's contract and use that $6m to upgrade our D. The cap space is all the return I'd need, anything above that would be gravy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 San Jose should be thinking retool/rebuild, but if Thornton and Marleau continue to refuse to waive their NMC's, the only smart option would be to make their team as competitive as possible for the next two seasons. So if that is the case, then a Miller trade makes perfect sense with them. And I guess if Anaheim's goaltending fails them again in the playoffs, then there could be interest there as well. I wouldn't expect a huge return in either case. San Jose may require us to retain a little cap (which may be worth it for the right piece coming back). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 San Jose should be thinking retool/rebuild, but if Thornton and Marleau continue to refuse to waive their NMC's, the only smart option would be to make their team as competitive as possible for the next two seasons. So if that is the case, then a Miller trade makes perfect sense with them. And I guess if Anaheim's goaltending fails them again in the playoffs, then there could be interest there as well. I wouldn't expect a huge return in either case. San Jose may require us to retain a little cap (which may be worth it for the right piece coming back). I'm thinking after jumbo Joe told Wilson to shut his big fat mouth that he might be willing to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I'm thinking after jumbo Joe told Wilson to shut his big fat mouth that he might be willing to move on. Joe has the highest job security in San Jose He won't move on until Wilson is fired - and if Wilson is fired, he might want to just stay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 San Jose should be thinking retool/rebuild, but if Thornton and Marleau continue to refuse to waive their NMC's, the only smart option would be to make their team as competitive as possible for the next two seasons. So if that is the case, then a Miller trade makes perfect sense with them. I keep having to repeat this but... WE were a retooling/rebuilding team last summer when we signed veteran Miller to soldify/lend stability to our goaltending position... There's no reason you wouldn't want a good, veteran goalie on a young/retooling team as well. That is unless you plan on going the Edmonton/scorched earth route... San Jose doesn't strike me as that sort...though I certainly could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Painful season's ending for O'Connor. And Boston as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Meh, he lost, let's not sign him... Just kidding, hopefully we can get him inked in the next couple weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 it looked like the pressure got to him in the Frozen Four a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs50 Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Not even trolling. He choked with that goal. Kinda don't care about him anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.