4thLineGrinder Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 they need a vet because they haven't played many NHL games yet. what if we just played them both in the nhl games we have this season, then they would be better goalies from the experience and we can save the money for a scoring winger or a RHD PP QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thLineGrinder Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Nope. Markstrom is going to need far too much tutelage from Melanson that should be going to Lack. I'm much more comfortable with a veteran than Divestrom to back up Lack. buzz is they will have regularly scheduled practices this year so it is conceivable that melanson can coach lack and markstrom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 would markstrom not have to clear waivers? No Yes he does have to clear waivers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Honestly, I'd rather tank this season and make a real run at Schneider next offseason. Schneider!!!worth a shot I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad alice french Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 A lot of us DO want to tank. oh......right. never mind then. ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 If there was ever a season to tank this is the one. People will complain etc but honestly does anyone in Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc. care that they tanked to get franchise players to lead them to cups? Nope. I think this is a season where we should jettison a bunch of older players and let the young guys get a year of experience no matter what the result, including Lack. It does not look like the Canucks are interested in doing so though which is fine too. But a guy like McDavid changes the fortunes of franchises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Why not hire some grossly obese man duck tape him in. Seriously what are the rules I bet you could find a guy somewhere that takes up every inch. And only costs weekly Tim Hortons gift cards. But really what if a huge man took up all the space would the nhl allow that? Lol Let's say he even only took up say 70% of the net. All he would have to do is shuffle from left to right and we are golden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Yes. We don't need any goalies. We need scorers. Next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucklehd Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Yes. Getting scored on won't matter if we can't score goals. It was too much to ask our goalies to only let in 1 goal a game last year. Score more goals and that stress will lead to more confidence and better goaltending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkpoet Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 A lot of us DO want to tank. A problem being the change in the draft (lottery) next season. Tanking no longer necessarily guarantees you the top pick. Playing our heart out and losing I can totally deal with. Purposefully putting a plan in place whereby the players are more likely to fail (because I don't believe the amount of youth on this team next season would play to lose on purpose) no, I won't watch or support that. Depending on what happens during free agency, I think the team could be a good bit better than some people think. I do get the problem some of you have with being "mediocre" though.... not good enough to get that excited about but not terrible either, so just "tank it" etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckler87 Posted June 29, 2014 Author Share Posted June 29, 2014 Why would we extend the Sedins if we are going to have no goalie to get us into the playoffs? Wouldn't it make sense to blow the whole old core up altogether and stockpile picks to accelerate the process? Buffalo has three first rounders & they suck so right now they are the front runners for McDavid anyways. Also, are there any bonafide starting goaltenders in next years draft expected to go high? Like a Carey Price type Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkpoet Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 And BTW I am totally ok with Lack as a starter this year, providing we somehow get Tyler Myers out of Buffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckler87 Posted June 29, 2014 Author Share Posted June 29, 2014 Apperently Canucks contacted Buf about Myers, but like the Wings, decided the asking price was too high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Goal is the ONLY position I am happy with, Let these two battle each other for the #1 spot this year, If there's a crear winner, that's our guy If they both look good, we trade one, If neither get it done, we are that much closer to drafting a REAL offensive prospect next year. We can't lose.......even if we don't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Apperently Canucks contacted Buf about Myers, but like the Wings, decided the asking price was too high When did everyone get so Goddamn cheap! You used to trade value for value... Now, unless you're totally burning the other team......no deal, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 A problem being the change in the draft (lottery) next season. Tanking no longer necessarily guarantees you the top pick. Playing our heart out and losing I can totally deal with. Purposefully putting a plan in place whereby the players are more likely to fail (because I don't believe the amount of youth on this team next season would play to lose on purpose) no, I won't watch or support that. Depending on what happens during free agency, I think the team could be a good bit better than some people think. I do get the problem some of you have with being "mediocre" though.... not good enough to get that excited about but not terrible either, so just "tank it" etc No player loses on purpose, especially not so his current team can draft higher, It depreciates his value in the marketplace and brings someone else in to potentially takes his job. The desire to tank is from fans only, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 When did everyone get so Goddamn cheap! You used to trade value for value... Now, unless you're totally burning the other team......no deal, I think given his contract and his relative underachievement the asking price may not have come down to a realistic level. I thought I read they wanted a young roster player, a top prospect, and a 1st round pick heading into the draft. That is unrealistic based on the above factors imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 A problem being the change in the draft (lottery) next season. Tanking no longer necessarily guarantees you the top pick. Playing our heart out and losing I can totally deal with. Purposefully putting a plan in place whereby the players are more likely to fail (because I don't believe the amount of youth on this team next season would play to lose on purpose) no, I won't watch or support that. Depending on what happens during free agency, I think the team could be a good bit better than some people think. I do get the problem some of you have with being "mediocre" though.... not good enough to get that excited about but not terrible either, so just "tank it" etc A problem being the change in the draft (lottery) next season. Tanking no longer necessarily guarantees you the top pick. Playing our heart out and losing I can totally deal with. Purposefully putting a plan in place whereby the players are more likely to fail (because I don't believe the amount of youth on this team next season would play to lose on purpose) no, I won't watch or support that. Depending on what happens during free agency, I think the team could be a good bit better than some people think. I do get the problem some of you have with being "mediocre" though.... not good enough to get that excited about but not terrible either, so just "tank it" etc I think there is a difference between purposely trying to lose and going with a young team that may need to learn the hard way how to win. If you sacrifice a year in the process gaining a good shot at a generational talent is the lowest risk time to do so imo. I would never advocate purposely losing. But I also don't think this should be the year we try to sign a bunch of free agents so we can make the playoffs. Because without huge changes to the core this team is not built to make any noise in the playoffs. If Benning can get some younger guys to replace vets (like he started doing with the Kesler deal) and play the style that he wants like Myers or say Marchand from Boston then that is a different story altogether. But if they feel like this core just needs to be augmented to be effective in the playoffs we will end up in typical Canuck land - namely high enough to not get a top pick without having a realistic shot at the cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinphase Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I'd wait til the trade deadline to decide. Lack is good enough to play in a 1A and 1B system. Completely unsure if Markstrom could be the 1B though. I want to see Markstrom play, partly to see what the hell we got in return for Luongo, but if Markstrom can emerge as a 1B than we save cap space and may possibly be able to go after a better FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I think given his contract and his relative underachievement the asking price may not have come down to a realistic level. I thought I read they wanted a young roster player, a top prospect, and a 1st round pick heading into the draft. That is unrealistic based on the above factors imo. If that's true, then I'm totally ok with being "Goddamn cheap" I think he is worth a decent return though, maybe one good but not great piece. Tough to put a price on Myers, he was one thing....then he was something else....very subjective value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.