avelanch Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Last night Marky-Mark saved 30 of 32 shots, sporting a 0.938 SV% and a 1.44GAA (thanks to the game going into double OT). a solid outing by the Funky Bunch gave him the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaBamba Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 With the emergence of Mrázek, Hamburger, Lack it leaves the goalie market flooded again. I don't think Benning will receive a good enough offer to dump Lack, Markstrom, Miller. Markstrom needs a legit backup gig to take his game to the next level. I'm not sure how he will get that done in Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilettante Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 With the emergence of Mrázek, Hamburger, Lack it leaves the goalie market flooded again. I don't think Benning will receive a good enough offer to dump Lack, Markstrom, Miller. Markstrom needs a legit backup gig to take his game to the next level. I'm not sure how he will get that done in Vancouver. Does it really matter what kind of offer we get for Miller though? We got him through free agency, could clear a substantial amount of cap space to bring in a 2C or an offensive D. Markstrom made 65 saves last night in a quadruple OT game. Can't believe we could lose him or Lack without getting to know and trading for what they could be in their prime. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedman Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 With the emergence of Mrázek, Hamburger, Lack it leaves the goalie market flooded again. I don't think Benning will receive a good enough offer to dump Lack, Markstrom, Miller. Markstrom needs a legit backup gig to take his game to the next level. I'm not sure how he will get that done in Vancouver. So you would rather just do nothing? If Lack plays like he did this year, he will seek at least 4M next summer when his contract is up. We clearly got ourselves a problem here. Do you want 2 goalies at a combined salary of 10M, or do you want Lack to hit the FA market? And i never understood the folks who suggested that trading Markstrom would be the best thing, because that makes completely no sense. Benning will be making a huge mistake if he doesn't trade either Miller (preferably) or Lack. Especially if he truly wants to be competitive year after year. As Dilettante said, trading Miller for anything that doesn't involve a cap dump, would be huge, even though there might not be a lot of teams (if any) interested. We signed him to be a starting goaltender (personally, i always thought the contract/signing was stupid, even though i respected Miller) but clearly he didn't live up to the expectations that comes when you're making 6M per year. Lack is arguably our best goaltender right now, and he's only making 1,150M per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 So you would rather just do nothing? If Lack plays like he did this year, he will seek at least 4M next summer when his contract is up. We clearly got ourselves a problem here. Do you want 2 goalies at a combined salary of 10M, or do you want Lack to hit the FA market? And i never understood the folks who suggested that trading Markstrom would be the best thing, because that makes completely no sense. Benning will be making a huge mistake if he doesn't trade either Miller (preferably) or Lack. Especially if he truly wants to be competitive year after year. As Dilettante said, trading Miller for anything that doesn't involve a cap dump, would be huge, even though there might not be a lot of teams (if any) interested. We signed him to be a starting goaltender (personally, i always thought the contract/signing was stupid, even though i respected Miller) but clearly he didn't live up to the expectations that comes when you're making 6M per year. Lack is arguably our best goaltender right now, and he's only making 1,150M per year. Agreed. We should dump Miller for whatever we can get even if its a late draft pick. Next year actually allow Markstrom to go through the entire year as a backup without the threat of being sent down and work with him over whatever confidence issues he might have at the NHL level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Why we didn't give Miller 2x6m, OR 3x5m is beyond me? Who was he using for leverage, the KHL? Silly mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Why we didn't give Miller 2x6m, OR 3x5m is beyond me? Who was he using for leverage, the KHL? Silly mistake. Because i'm sure he had similar offers from other teams. And without Miller we wouldn't have made the playoffs which was the purpose/goal Benning and Linden. IT WAS A GOOD SIGNING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combover Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Because i'm sure he had similar offers from other teams. And without Miller we wouldn't have made the playoffs which was the purpose/goal Benning and Linden. IT WAS A GOOD SIGNING Agreed. lack would make the most sense to be moved . markstrom hasn't been given a legit shot in van. People seem to forget lack couldn't buy a win in the preseason and early this season. 5 loses if I remember right. Can't see miller getting moved he's bennings guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Because i'm sure he had similar offers from other teams. And without Miller we wouldn't have made the playoffs which was the purpose/goal Benning and Linden. IT WAS A GOOD SIGNING It was a good signing. But now with Eddie's emergence as a number 1 we're in a position where we need to movie a goalie, and most agree that Miller is the best candidate. Actually trading him is another matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Soldier Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 It was a good signing. But now with Eddie's emergence as a number 1 we're in a position where we need to movie a goalie, and most agree that Miller is the best candidate. Actually trading him is another matter entirely. What emergence? He played pretty well given an absurdly small sample size, not nearly enough to dethrone Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 What emergence? He played pretty well given an absurdly small sample size, not nearly enough to dethrone Miller. he played 41 games 2 years in a row, both with long stints where he started every night in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 he played 41 games 2 years in a row, both with long stints where he started every night in a row. And he started to show signs of fatigure in the playoffs. which is still a reason to be cautious with the amount of games he plays. Next year I see it being a 50/30 split. With Miller geting 50 games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 And he started to show signs of fatigure in the playoffs. which is still a reason to be cautious with the amount of games he plays. Next year I see it being a 50/30 split. With Miller geting 50 games Anyone who plays 20-25 games with minimal breaks will show some signs of fatigue, especially with out defence in front of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Agreed. lack would make the most sense to be moved . markstrom hasn't been given a legit shot in van. People seem to forget lack couldn't buy a win in the preseason and early this season. 5 loses if I remember right. Can't see miller getting moved he's bennings guy. Lack was lights-out in the preseason. He did struggle at the beginning of the regular season, but that was partly because he went weeks between starts, got some tough assignments, and not much goal support. He is at least as good as Miller at this stage. If we get a decent offer, I'd still trade him, but the chances of that don't look good. If we can move Miller as a cap-dumb, that's plenty good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuckin Kingsly Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 And he started to show signs of fatigure in the playoffs. which is still a reason to be cautious with the amount of games he plays. Next year I see it being a 50/30 split. With Miller geting 50 gamesAgree on the first part, but I think miller will be traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 And he started to show signs of fatigure in the playoffs. which is still a reason to be cautious with the amount of games he plays. Next year I see it being a 50/30 split. With Miller geting 50 games he played like 30 straight. with a few nights off it'd be a non factor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 he played like 30 straight. with a few nights off it'd be a non factor would it? Dubnyk and Holtby played something like 35 straight games with no drop off in profermance. I would be weary of letting Lack run with the number 1 job next year. No need to rush him when we have Miller still under contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuckin Kingsly Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 would it? Dubnyk and Holtby played something like 35 straight games with no drop off in profermance. I would be weary of letting Lack run with the number 1 job next year. No need to rush him when we have Miller still under contractSo would you keep miller for one year. And lose markstrom for pretty well nothing. Or shed miller and get something decent back and keep markstrom for the future? I dont want to lose markstrom. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 So would you keep miller for one year. And lose markstrom for pretty well nothing. Or shed miller and get something decent back and keep markstrom for the future? I dont want to lose markstrom. I would say trade Markstrom in a package deal. Something like Higgins, Markstom ______ for ______ and _____ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuckin Kingsly Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I would say trade Markstrom in a package deal. Something likeHiggins, Markstom ______ for ______ and _____What u think we could get or close to get for that package? Cause id be all for it man if the return was decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now