Should we trade Miller in the summer? [Discussion]

[Nuxfanabroad]

Big, talented kid like JM could easily turn into a Dubnyk story, given the right situation.

Deal Miller. Even if you must retain some cap.

[Pimp C]

Its a joke that benning knew nothing about the team he was inheriting.

[Crabcakes]

I think that Benning will keep Miller and that is how I voted [i read the OP's post after voting]

This thread is about what I think though, so here goes:

I am going to bow to Bennings superior knowledge of the game of hockey over mine when he said that goaltending is the most important position. For this reason, the first consideration of rebuilding the team must come down to the selection of goaltenders. So, while it is attractive to trade Miller to free up cap space so that other positions could be added to, this is putting priorities in the wrong order.

It is given that one of Miller, Lack or Markstrom will not be a Canuck next year.

Markstrom is the problem the way he is right now in his development.

• great in Utica
• wobbly in Vancouver

So, despite his potential, does it make sense to use the third best of the three goalies? I have read it in this thread and written it in others that as Markstrom is performing right now, I am not comfortable having him start 20 games next year if he is the back up and God help us if the starter gets injured and Markstrom has to play more. Much the same scenario as has happened this year.

This logic is why I am more comfortable with the tandem of Lack and Miller, or Miller and Lack. Eddy showed last night against Nashville that he can come up big when the game is on the line which is Bennings measure of a goalie playing well. Lack has developed remarkably since Miller has been injured. For this reason, I think that Lack could fulfil the Canucks long term needs.

This season started with Miller playing 4/5 games and Lack playing 1/5. Just before Miller injury it was more like Miller 3/4, Lack 1/4. I expect that Lack will remain the starter through the playoffs. Next season I think Miller plays 3/5, Lack 2/5 at the beginning and by the end of the season I think that Lack will be getting more games than Miller. The time line of this transition depends on how Lack develops. It may be faster or slower but at some point Miller will either be traded or retired.

So next year, keep Miller. After that, we'll see.

Millers limited no trade clause I believe is that Miller can provide a short list of teams this year and after that, there is no restriction. Does anybody know for sure?

[VegasCanuck]

I think that Benning will keep Miller and that is how I voted [i read the OP's post after voting]

This thread is about what I think though, so here goes:

I am going to bow to Bennings superior knowledge of the game of hockey over mine when he said that goaltending is the most important position. For this reason, the first consideration of rebuilding the team must come down to the selection of goaltenders. So, while it is attractive to trade Miller to free up cap space so that other positions could be added to, this is putting priorities in the wrong order.

It is given that one of Miller, Lack or Markstrom will not be a Canuck next year.

Markstrom is the problem the way he is right now in his development.

• great in Utica
• wobbly in Vancouver

So, despite his potential, does it make sense to use the third best of the three goalies? I have read it in this thread and written it in others that as Markstrom is performing right now, I am not comfortable having him start 20 games next year if he is the back up and God help us if the starter gets injured and Markstrom has to play more. Much the same scenario as has happened this year.

This logic is why I am more comfortable with the tandem of Lack and Miller, or Miller and Lack. Eddy showed last night against Nashville that he can come up big when the game is on the line which is Bennings measure of a goalie playing well. Lack has developed remarkably since Miller has been injured. For this reason, I think that Lack could fulfil the Canucks long term needs.

This season started with Miller playing 4/5 games and Lack playing 1/5. Just before Miller injury it was more like Miller 3/4, Lack 1/4. I expect that Lack will remain the starter through the playoffs. Next season I think Miller plays 3/5, Lack 2/5 at the beginning and by the end of the season I think that Lack will be getting more games than Miller. The time line of this transition depends on how Lack develops. It may be faster or slower but at some point Miller will either be traded or retired.

So next year, keep Miller. After that, we'll see.

Millers limited no trade clause I believe is that Miller can provide a short list of teams this year and after that, there is no restriction. Does anybody know for sure?

All really good points, and its really hard to know for sure which way to go. Somewhere, we are likely going to have to find some cap space to fill out forward positions.

I like Miller as a goalie. Fans get on him, but they would be getting on Patrick Roy, Ken Dryden, or (Insert other Hall of Fame goalie here) every time he has an off game. Its the way our fan base is.

I think Lack and Miller work incredibly well as a tandem, but I would also hate to lose Markstrom for little to nothing as I think he really does have potential.

I completely understand why Benning went out and signed Miller on July 1. We needed to send a message to the fans and to everyone forward of goal that we intended to complete this year and that we would push for the playoffs. I think the signing has worked incredibly well, but a little like Gillis with the Luongo situation, the assumption was that there would continue to be cap space. Gillis didn't foresee the changes to long-term contracts before the new CBA (although I maintain that everyone had to know that there were going to be changes there) and Benning didn't foresee that the Canadian dollar would drop as fast as it did, causing constraints in the cap.

I don't believe this is a snap decision that Benning will make, and if I were in his position (that's what this is about, what would we do), I'd also wait and see if the NHL is going to increase the cap enough to allow us to sign everyone we need to.

We know that coming out of camp next year, we will always have someone go down with an injury, providing us with some LTI relief.

If push comes to shove though and we don't get the cap space that we need to round out 4 lines, I think if I were in Bennings position, I would seriously explore moving Miller to a team (maybe San Jose) who has the cap space to take him.

The economics of the cap sometimes push us into positions that we don't really want to be in, but I think the smartest thing to do would be to see if we could flip him for another prospect goalie who can help strengthen our overall position in net, long term.

[tyhee]

...

Millers limited no trade clause I believe is that Miller can provide a short list of teams this year and after that, there is no restriction. Does anybody know for sure?

I don't know for sure. None of the media reports that I saw about his signing said anything about the restriction being only in the first year, though-Crabcakes post is the first place I've seen it suggested.

[Crabcakes]

I don't remember where I heard about the restrictions being for only one year. Maybe the radio. I haven't seen it elsewhere so maybe I'm mistaken. That's why I was asking if anybody knew anything more.

[VegasCanuck]

I don't remember where I heard about the restrictions being for only one year. Maybe the radio. I haven't seen it elsewhere so maybe I'm mistaken. That's why I was asking if anybody knew anything more.

According to Spotrac.com, he can give the Canucks a list of 5 teams that he'll accept trade to:

Link: http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/vancouver-canucks/ryan-miller/

[Junkyard Dog]

No we shouldn't. We need 2 solid goalies.

[Bo knows]

I say we definitely trade miller, lack is fine and it will be good for markstroms development, in the next few years we can make a decision of which one to keep when demko comes.

[hsedin33]

No we shouldn't. We need 2 solid goalies.

Exactly. Lack might get injured or falter. Miller is the #1 for a few years more whether people like it or not. Benning isn't going to allow another goalie controversy to fester like Gillis did.

[Junkyard Dog]

Exactly. Lack might get injured or falter. Miller is the #1 for a few years more whether people like it or not. Benning isn't going to allow another goalie controversy to fester like Gillis did.

When one of our goalie prospects are able to step into the league the way Lack did then and only then should we try and move Miller.

Miller was signed to be that stop gap and help keep us competitive. He has done his job thus far.

[aGENT]

When one of our goalie prospects are able to step into the league the way Lack did then and only then should we try and move Miller.

Miller was signed to be that stop gap and help keep us competitive. He has done his job thus far.

We could sign/PTO a vet UFA goalie to push Markstrom in the fall and trade/waive whoever isn't up to snuff.

Just saying...

There's very little reason to keep Miller and his $6m cap hit next season IMO. Two starting goalies is a luxury, not a necessity. It's also not viable long term IMO (GOALIE CONTROVERSY!!! ).

Never mind the waste of cap space.

[tyhee]

When one of our goalie prospects are able to step into the league the way Lack did then and only then should we try and move Miller.

Miller was signed to be that stop gap and help keep us competitive. He has done his job thus far.

Well, here's the problem.

How will we ever know if a goalie prospect is able to step up when the coach won't play him?

The coach would hardly play Lack early in the season. When he did, it was in the tough spots, generally (and for a time exclusively) the back end of back to backs.

Lack wouldn't have gotten an opportunity this year to show he could handle the load if Miller hadn't been hurt.

Further, Markstrom, for all the criticism he gets here, got even less chance during his time here than Lack did early in the season. Markstrom sat early when there was speculation he'd be in the lineup to give Lack a rest and by the time the coach let him in a game it was clear the coach didn't have confidence in him. He had a shakey (and somewhat unlucky) outing, then by the time he got back into the lineup it was completely clear the coach didn't have confidence in him. Despite playing fine that 2nd game, he never saw the light of day again, even when Lack was faltering and had played something like 20 games in 42 days during the busy part of the schedule with his team having gone through a stretch with most of the regular defencemen and a couple of the forwards out with injuries.

It's clear that Canucks have a coach who wants to ride one goaltender. A goaltender who is new to him isn't going to gain the coach's confidence and it's going to be clear the coach doesn't have the confidence. Even the 2nd goalie won't play until he's gotten in via injury to the #1 and carried the load. The 3rd goalie is extremely unlikely to get a decent chance to show he can play.

In the fall and through January I often replied to people disparaging Lack, arguing he was actually outplaying Miller and wasn't being given a fair shot. Some would agree, some would not, but only a Lack hater would argue now that Lack wasn't a far more capable goalie than was apparent to most while he was a distant #2 in the fall. I thought then, and still think, the Markstrom is capable of being in the NHL now. It doesn't look like he'll get a chance here-and his value may have been destroyed by his stint in Vancouver, notwithstanding his outstanding season in Utica.

The point is, how are we to ever know if a goalie is going to be able to play in the NHL?

[Mustapha]

I think Lack could play 60 games next season, so maybe look at moving Miller.

Is there another team in the league with a goalie over the age of 34? Gotta go young IMO.

I think Markstrom could develop into a 30 game guy, and if not, whatever, lots of goalie talent around. Far more players than jobs at that position right now.

[Crabcakes]

Markstrom's lack of play time comes down to his opportunity coming at the end of the season when the stakes were high and when he did get his start he looked like a nervous school girl.

[dilettante]

I don't mind moving either Markstom or Miller, as long as we get a fair return. I'd hate to lose another goalie for less than we deserve. Lack is the intangible to me. He's young, he's proven against elite teams and he's got the attitude to play in Vancouver.

I think it'll be another busy draft day for trader Benning.

[BI3KSA-]

We could sign/PTO a vet UFA goalie to push Markstrom in the fall and trade/waive whoever isn't up to snuff.

Just saying...

There's very little reason to keep Miller and his $6m cap hit next season IMO. Two starting goalies is a luxury, not a necessity. It's also not viable long term IMO (GOALIE CONTROVERSY!!! ).

Never mind the waste of cap space.

[CatsPajamas]

Dump him if possible for sure, unless Lack plays badly in the playoffs and Miller reclaims the starting job. Lack has the trust and the love of the city, and most importantly management and the coaching staff. Well, I assume he has the trust of the organization, I would think he has earned it. Lack's a star in this city more than Miller will ever be and is just as good, thus from a ticket sales standpoint this along with Lacks' 1.15 million vs Miller's 6 million makes Lack the more profitable choice. On the hockey side of things that 5 is so valuable, Lack is younger and still improving. On the other hand Miller is aging, and inconsistent, and expensive.

Unless they get huge offers for Lack I'd say force Miller out... as quietly as possible. For whatever, just no cap retention.

[Tangelos]

I'm still not convinced lack can handle 60+ games in the NHL. Since he's under contract for another year why not just keep Miller around for one more year

[Crabcakes]

You can't draw any long term conclusions from last nights performance.

Miller looked a. rusty b. not over his injury.

On the rust: I felt as though he played better as the game went on. This is a good sign because the playing time did what it was supposed to do; help Miller regain some semblance of feel and rhythm. And if he improved over the course of the game then, he wasn't doing further damage to his knee. In conclusion, IF he sees the net again this season, he won't be any worse.