Erik Karlsson Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Great save https://streamable.com/faz4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Markstrome IS NHL ready. I have no doubt in my mind he will be a solid NHL goalie. Needs to work on his lateral speed a bit though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Markstrom so far is a guy who has proved himself in the AHL but has struggled at the NHL level. He has all the tools excep 2 major ones: he's often caught out of his crease and gives out horrible rebounds. In the A, he can make up by making diving saves which we see as he's amazing but in reality, it's a result of him putting himself in that position in the first place. In the NHL, he can't do that and will get burned. I believe he is ready but he has to fix these 2 things otherwise he'll end up being a goalie like many who had tons of AHL success but no NHL success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Markstrom so far is a guy who has proved himself in the AHL but has struggled at the NHL level.He has all the tools excep 2 major ones: he's often caught out of his crease and gives out horrible rebounds. In the A, he can make up by making diving saves which we see as he's amazing but in reality, it's a result of him putting himself in that position in the first place. In the NHL, he can't do that and will get burned. I believe he is ready but he has to fix these 2 things otherwise he'll end up being a goalie like many who had tons of AHL success but no NHL success. You do realize that Lack has the exact same problems right? Markstrom is 2 years younger and will be protected by Miller. I won't except to see more than 20 starts for Markstrom next year. Lack would be looking for at least 35 starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wshdrvvn Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Markstrom so far is a guy who has proved himself in the AHL but has struggled at the NHL level. He has all the tools excep 2 major ones: he's often caught out of his crease and gives out horrible rebounds. In the A, he can make up by making diving saves which we see as he's amazing but in reality, it's a result of him putting himself in that position in the first place. In the NHL, he can't do that and will get burned. I believe he is ready but he has to fix these 2 things otherwise he'll end up being a goalie like many who had tons of AHL success but no NHL success. That's only one thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 That's only one thing wut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBQ Sauce99 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 It doesn't matter if lack has made markstrom expandable, the point is that we shouldn't even have to get rid of either one, but are dumbass GM cost us this one. Okay so the plan was to go with Lack/Markstrom in the 2015 season? Lack who was forced into being a starter at the end of the 2014 season and albeit with a train wreck of D infront of him still crashed himself. Was our 'dumbass' GM supposto stick with status quo and hope for Lack to rebound into a starting goaltender in the NHL and a prospect who btw is still a prospect in Markstrom to carry our team? He made the call to bring in a veteran Olympic goalie in Miller; and incase you didn't notice that forced Markstrom to stay in the AHL where it looks like *knocks on wood* he's found his game again. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 That's only one thing Caught out of his crease and gives up rebounds. Too many words or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerbera Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Okay so the plan was to go with Lack/Markstrom in the 2015 season? Lack who was forced into being a starter at the end of the 2014 season and albeit with a train wreck of D infront of him still crashed himself. Was our 'dumbass' GM supposto stick with status quo and hope for Lack to rebound into a starting goaltender in the NHL and a prospect who btw is still a prospect in Markstrom to carry our team? He made the call to bring in a veteran Olympic goalie in Miller; and incase you didn't notice that forced Markstrom to stay in the AHL where it looks like *knocks on wood* he's found his game again. I agree. Lack wasn't playing well near the end of last season (although he was severely overworked) and Markstrom was coming off an average season in the AHL and his few games in the NHL. Goaltending was a very big risk for us going forward. Bringing Miller in stabilized our goaltending situation and allow us to send Markstrom down to get more playing time in the AHL. Look at Markstrom, he is playing very well in the AHL regular season and playoffs and will become at least a decent trading chip for us this upcoming draft. Although I agree signing Miller to such a long and high cap hit contract might not be the most ideal plan, people should give credit to Benning who managed to slip Markstrom (throught waivers) into the AHL and allowed him to develop back into a good goalie prospect at the minimum. People also need to remember that as average as Miller's number looked, there are a few games (esp. early parts of the season) where Miller absolutely bailed us out. At the minimum, signing Miller gave us an extra trading chip to fill some of the other bigger holes in the club. We need value other than in the form of draft picks in order to be able to get value from other teams. Sure giving up Lack (or Markstrom) might sting, but at least we can get some decent value for positions where we have a little extra depth (which is not something this organization can say about its defense and forward.) Edited June 11, 2015 by Gerbera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wshdrvvn Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Caught out of his crease and gives up rebounds. Too many words or what? must have been. not sure how I missed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I agree. Lack wasn't playing well near the end of last season (although he was severely overworked) and Markstrom was coming off an average season in the AHL and his few games in the NHL. Goaltending was a very big risk for us going forward. Bringing Miller in stabilized our goaltending situation and allow us to send Markstrom down to get more playing time in the AHL. Look at Markstrom, he is playing very well in the AHL regular season and playoffs and will become at least a decent trading chip for us this upcoming draft. Although I agree signing Miller to such a long and high cap hit contract might not be the most ideal plan, people should give credit to Benning who managed to slip Markstrom (throught waivers) into the AHL and allowed him to develop back into a good goalie prospect at the minimum. People also need to remember that as average as Miller's number looked, there are a few games (esp. early parts of the season) where Miller absolutely bailed us out. At the minimum, signing Miller gave us an extra trading chip to fill some of the other bigger holes in the club. We need value other than in the form of draft picks in order to be able to get value from other teams. Sure giving up Lack (or Markstrom) might sting, but at least we can get some decent value for positions where we have a little extra depth (which is not something this organization can say about its defense and forward.)Possibly moving Lack is all about management's confidence that Markstrom can evolve into a NHL tender.IMHO it is a gamble, Lack is less of a gamble. That does not change the reality of which tender brings the most benefit back to the Canucks. If the rumor is that there is no market for Miller then it doescome down to Lack being traded. I wanted Miller traded at the March deadline but his injury preventedthat, if Benning was even considering a deal.Interesting times. Canucks have a long way to go before being serious contenders again. Benning has tomove some vets before fall, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 It doesn't matter if lack has made markstrom expandable, the point is that we shouldn't even have to get rid of either one, but are dumbass GM cost us this one. Forgive me if I highly discount your opinion based on the fact that you don't know the difference between a verb and a possessive pronoun. People are awfully angry about the goalie situation given that 2 of our 3 were signed for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Possibly moving Lack is all about management's confidence that Markstrom can evolve into a NHL tender. IMHO it is a gamble, Lack is less of a gamble. That does not change the reality of which tender brings the most benefit back to the Canucks. If the rumor is that there is no market for Miller then it does come down to Lack being traded. I wanted Miller traded at the March deadline but his injury prevented that, if Benning was even considering a deal. Interesting times. Canucks have a long way to go before being serious contenders again. Benning has to move some vets before fall, IMHO. Possibly moving Lack is all about the team being saddled with a $10M+ cap hit in goal in 2 years.... Edited June 19, 2015 by Crabcakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Possibly moving Lack is all about the team being saddled with a $10M+ cap hit in goal in 2 years....I am assuming your $10 Mil is if Lack and Miller are the two tenders. No doubt that cannot happen. IfLack was kept I see a bridge deal in any event as he is still not a given. While he is still a higherrisk than Miller he would be cheaper and potentially has a higher upside. Since the team will notcontend for a CUP for several years I think the risk is worth it. His age compliments the rosterdevelopment.Benning has committed to Miller as he stated he could not risk two young tenders. That and probablybecause the market is not there for Miller. Canadian conservatism is as natural as ice and putting a competitive team on the ice supercedes a CUP contender. That is the history of this franchise. The NHL seems to be moving to younger and cheaper tenders. Exactly why I wanted Lack and Markstrom, riskier buta potential long term winner.It is about the reality of the situation. If Miller is unmovable then a choice between Lack andMarkstrom is the issue. Miller's contract is another 2 seasons and since Markstrom is 2 years youngerthan Lack I accept that Lack is the mover. He should bring more back than Markstrom in a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Possibly moving Lack is all about the team being saddled with a $10M+ cap hit in goal in 2 years.... There would have been a good way to have solved ~$5m of that problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Possibly moving Lack is all about the team being saddled with a $10M+ cap hit in goal in 2 years.... I completely agree. This point does not get enough emphasis. I can recall an interview in which Benning said he had talked with Lack's agent and that they knew what it would take to re-sign Eddie and he sounded pretty negative about it. And given that Benning has not shown much interest in back and forth bargaining but instead either accepts what the player wants or gives up, I think he has probably decided the Canucks cannot afford Lack. The consensus view is that Lack is probably worth about 4 million per year and given that the Cap will be lower next year than expected and quite possibly will not go up much the year after, that is a problem. I also find the spin on Miller misleading. Benning's argument is that "we want an experienced goalie instead of relying on two young guys". That does not hold water. At age 27 Lack is no longer "young". He will turn 28 next season, has 3 years in the AHL and 2 years in the NHL under his belt, and should entering his prime right now. The real reason for keeping Miller is that his contract is untradable. His age, his injury status, his poor year last year, and the size of the cap hit all make his contract hard to trade. He could have a bounce back year next year and that is what Benning has to hope for. There really are no other options. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 The real reason for keeping Miller is that his contract is untradable. His age, his injury status, his poor year last year, and the size of the cap hit all make his contract hard to trade. He could have a bounce back year next year and that is what Benning has to hope for. There really are no other options. *Ding, ding, ding!* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I thought people would all have realized this by now (well, except for Apollo, who's clearly been riding the overly positive train for too long). Even retaining 50% and getting virtually nothing in return (barring a cap dump swap) still leaves a team with an older, deteriorating, coming off an injury goalie with a $3M cap hit for two more years. He's just not that attractive a solution for any teams at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I just don't get how people want Miller gone!he came in and did what was expected of him.Lack is the one that looks best right now to be traded.Both Lack and Markstrom need to be groomed for a year or two which means Miller will stay for now.If we start with lack and Markstrom if one faulters we won't make the playoffs.Benning is smart and knows the best one /two would be Miller-Lack/Markstrom for now! 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