Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

What to do when Miller returns from injury


It_all_began_In_1970

Recommended Posts

I'll just say this that I agree about most of what you said.

But for the bolded part, I'll have to disagree.

Miller was definitely not a mistake. Alright, the money doesn't look good for a 34 year old goalie. However, where would this team be without Miller? We're in a playoff spot because of our goaltending. Lack has been great, but if you were to choose between a goalie to play against teams like CHI, L.A, SJ, ANA, NSH, WIN, who would you start? The older, more proven, and better goalie or the backup?

But my point is that Benning wants our team to compete. He wants us to make the playoffs. We have a team that is capable of winning. Eddie Lack is great, don't get me wrong. Miller gives us that. Without him, I don't think we'd be a playoff team right now as we are currently.

You see, these are the posts that piss the crap out of me.

I guess what I meant to say was that the money given to Miller was a mistake.

Before the season started, I only ever saw the Canucks as a team that would make the playoffs in the 6-8 seed. Definitely not a Cup contender, no matter who was in net. Having the team competitive enough to battle for a final playoff spot is absolutely necessary, so the young players (i.e. Horvat, etc) develop in a competitive environment and don't get used to losing. I really feel bad for RNH, Hall, and Yakupov. When you get used to losing, it must be really tough to turn things around when you've been around it so long.

That said, having a younger goaltender in net doesn't mean that a team can't be competitive. I don't mind Miller at all. But at $6M, his age, and who the Canucks have at backup, I don't think he was necessary. The one goaltender I was hoping that either the Jets or the Canucks targeted in the off-season was Jonas Hiller. Who surprisingly went for less and would have been a better investment than Miller.

My point is that I think where the Canucks forward and defense group is at, Miller wasn't needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I meant to say was that the money given to Miller was a mistake.

Before the season started, I only ever saw the Canucks as a team that would make the playoffs in the 6-8 seed. Definitely not a Cup contender, no matter who was in net. Having the team competitive enough to battle for a final playoff spot is absolutely necessary, so the young players (i.e. Horvat, etc) develop in a competitive environment and don't get used to losing. I really feel bad for RNH, Hall, and Yakupov. When you get used to losing, it must be really tough to turn things around when you've been around it so long.

That said, having a younger goaltender in net doesn't mean that a team can't be competitive. I don't mind Miller at all. But at $6M, his age, and who the Canucks have at backup, I don't think he was necessary. The one goaltender I was hoping that either the Jets or the Canucks targeted in the off-season was Jonas Hiller. Who surprisingly went for less and would have been a better investment than Miller.

My point is that I think where the Canucks forward and defense group is at, Miller wasn't needed.

The cost for Miller is "average" among experienced goalies.

If money was the object, we should have kept Luongo, for @ $5.3M he's a steal and we're paying $800,000 of that - when you add that to Miller's, that's $6.8 million which is almost the same as Rinne. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant....agree 120%

now, when do we play Markstrom??

After his last outing THAT is the question. I was really looking forward to seeing him get a start this season so we could gauge his progress and I don't think we did get an accurate picture from his one start. However, we need these points and don't have any throwaway games. Can we afford to take the chance that he'll let another game get out of hand within the first 4 shots again?

Glad I'm not the coach on that one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost for Miller is "average" among experienced goalies.

If money was the object, we should have kept Luongo, for @ $5.3M he's a steal and we're paying $800,000 of that - when you add that to Miller's, that's $6.8 million which is almost the same as Rinne. :(

In the end, I guess I just don't understand the reasoning behind getting a $6M goaltender when your team isn't a $6M goaltender away from winning the Cup.

I've never been one to crap on a GMs decision, as they know a hell of a lot more about putting together a team than I do, and there is always more to signings than just "win a Cup". Perhaps Benning really did think that the team was a Ryan Miller away from a Stanley Cup. Or perhaps it was the optics more then anything. Sign a big name free agent goaltender, treat him well, so that the franchise that took an absolute beating in the press would still be seen as a team players want to go to; that the Luongo situation was one that was just mishandled by the previous regime, a speed bump. Who knows.

There's always more that comes into play. Purely as a fan, and one that's not living in the fishbowl from the outside looking in, the signing just screams of desperation; a hail mary because things were getting really bad. That said, while I'm not thrilled about some of the choices, it's still light years better than what the Leafs or the Oilers are doing to turn their franchises around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting stat.

Total Goalie saves so far this season,

Canucks goalies have the most and Miller has the bulk of those

Notice that the top 9 teams are all playoff teams at the moment

canucks_saves.0.JPG

I'm not sure where you got this but while the numbers themselves might actually be correct on face value (I only checked Vancouver's) they are absolutely NOT the teams with the most saves in the league. Not even close.

According to NHL.com stats, more than half of the teams have had more shots against than we have. From that alone you can bet we don't have the most saves. (If we did we'd be getting the President's Trophy again...)

In reality, we're 12th on the list of shots against (with 1918 in 65 games) but 18th for goals against (with 176.) Simple subtraction shows that our goalies have made 1742 saves as your graph shows, however that's NOT even close to the most in the league. I'm sure lots of teams who have allowed more shots than us have more saves too. It's kind of how it works.

For example, Buffalo is the worst in both shots against and goals against, having given up 2339 shots against and 221 goals in their 66 games. They suck. (Shocker, I know!) But that also means that their goalies have made a combined 2118 saves, which is far more than our 1742.

Looking at the other end of the league, Anaheim (currently leading the league in points) has given up 1986 shots against and 179 goals against in their 67 games. That means their goalies have made 1789 saves thus far.

And, of course, you have to be suspicious of any list of the "most saves" that doesn't include the team with the goalie currently sporting the league leading SV% and GAA. Montreal has given up 2002 shots against (22nd in the league) in their 66 games but only given up 143 goals against (1st in the league), meaning they've gotten 1859 saves from their goalies. (Price made 1470 of those saves, which is 3rd most among goalies.)

A couple of other (semi-) relevant examples: Florida has given up 1982 shots against and allowed 178 goals in 66 games, meaning they've gotten 1804 saves from their goalies. (Luongo made 1377 of those saves, good for 6th among goalies.) NJ has given up 2018 shots against but only allowed 164 goals against in 66 games, meaning they've gotten 1854 saves from their goalies. (Schneider currently leads the league for number of saves, with 1524.) For comparison, Miller has made 1068 saves (22nd) and Lack has made 673 (37). That doesn't mean that our goalies aren't doing their job and keeping their team in a given game, it just means it's always smart to fact check stuff you find online because we're clearly not even in the top 5 teams with the most saves, much less leading the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue I have is the time off for Miller. It's tough to throw him back in net after five or six weeks off.

Except that Miller is our number one and clearly needs to play before the playoffs start. We're sitting great... two awesome goalies. Although, Miller has shown his age when he's tired, so maybe Eddie could get a few more starts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you're saying, but can you direct us to the NHL.com stat in this case? I can't find it. I also hate the updated format.

i was just adding the saves from both goalies together... NHL.com when you go to team stats you can go to SA per game and it shows the teams who give up the most shots and in almost all cases those teams have the most saves.. and that list i believe has the right amount of saves ,but in no way is that the proper rankings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where you got this but while the numbers themselves might actually be correct on face value (I only checked Vancouver's) they are absolutely NOT the teams with the most saves in the league. Not even close.

According to NHL.com stats, more than half of the teams have had more shots against than we have. From that alone you can bet we don't have the most saves. (If we did we'd be getting the President's Trophy again...)

In reality, we're 12th on the list of shots against (with 1918 in 65 games) but 18th for goals against (with 176.) Simple subtraction shows that our goalies have made 1742 saves as your graph shows, however that's NOT even close to the most in the league. I'm sure lots of teams who have allowed more shots than us have more saves too. It's kind of how it works.

For example, Buffalo is the worst in both shots against and goals against, having given up 2339 shots against and 221 goals in their 66 games. They suck. (Shocker, I know!) But that also means that their goalies have made a combined 2118 saves, which is far more than our 1742.

Looking at the other end of the league, Anaheim (currently leading the league in points) has given up 1986 shots against and 179 goals against in their 67 games. That means their goalies have made 1789 saves thus far.

And, of course, you have to be suspicious of any list of the "most saves" that doesn't include the team with the goalie currently sporting the league leading SV% and GAA. Montreal has given up 2002 shots against (22nd in the league) in their 66 games but only given up 143 goals against (1st in the league), meaning they've gotten 1859 saves from their goalies. (Price made 1470 of those saves, which is 3rd most among goalies.)

A couple of other (semi-) relevant examples: Florida has given up 1982 shots against and allowed 178 goals in 66 games, meaning they've gotten 1804 saves from their goalies. (Luongo made 1377 of those saves, good for 6th among goalies.) NJ has given up 2018 shots against but only allowed 164 goals against in 66 games, meaning they've gotten 1854 saves from their goalies. (Schneider currently leads the league for number of saves, with 1524.) For comparison, Miller has made 1068 saves (22nd) and Lack has made 673 (37). That doesn't mean that our goalies aren't doing their job and keeping their team in a given game, it just means it's always smart to fact check stuff you find online because we're clearly not even in the top 5 teams with the most saves, much less leading the league.

it came off of some canucks propaganda site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically, they go back to Miller when he's healthy.

I would have been thrilled if they'd signed him for 1 year.

I'd have been happy with 2 years, as that probably would have indicated an acceptable/reasonable term for Lack to wait, backup, tandem or w.h.y.

Three years was somewhat of a disappointment, if for no other reason than it pretty much puts the writing on the wall up front. I hope there is a way to retain Eddie, but can we expect him to wait until age 29 for a shot at a starting role?

I think GMJB is great, and I'm not going to second guess him, but for me personally the best outcome would be to ride MIller this year - as was clearly the intention - but if he struggles, Lack is there as a great option, one you can never really complain about - having two guys that can carry the ball. But when it comes to season's end, my preference would be to keep Eddie moving forward, perhaps deal Miller to a team like San Jose (I am not afraid of that team or of the idea of 'helping' them) - I think you could probably get a solid return for him - and then whether it's Markstrom or going to the UFA market for a mid range backup/tandem (Neuvirth, Greiss, Dubnyk are UFAs), that would be ideal from my perspective. I simply like Eddie Lack too much to want to see him moved.

They've had fairly parallel trajectories the last year.

Eddie had a rough stretch to end last season, playing behind a fire drill.

Miller disappointed in St Louis, with a sub par last 20 games and unimpressive playoffs.

This year, they've both been outstanding - lights out - at times, but not terribly conistent, with some meltdowns on behalf of both of them. They've had comparable numbers, with Miller the slight GAA edge (2.47 to 2.52) and Eddie the SV% edge (.918 to .913).

Imo there is no clear or obvious answer to what course the team should take - I think it's clearly a matter of opinion or preference - but I personally would lean towards the young, homegrown, sentimental favorite in Eddie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

If money was the object, we should have kept Luongo, for @ $5.3M he's a steal and we're paying $800,000 of that - when you add that to Miller's, that's $6.8 million which is almost the same as Rinne. :(

I think Luongo was traded because his position in Vancouver was contrary to what he was promised it would be before the season. When Schneider was traded news reports indicated Gillis had assured Luongo he'd be #1. Not starting the Heritage Classic seemed to break that assurance.

Yes, it could have made sense to keep Luongo rather than sign Miller. If the Canucks don't get some more mileage out of Matthias, Markstrom or both, they should have kept Luongo rather than sign Miller.

In the end, I guess I just don't understand the reasoning behind getting a $6M goaltender when your team isn't a $6M goaltender away from winning the Cup.

I've never been one to crap on a GMs decision, as they know a hell of a lot more about putting together a team than I do, and there is always more to signings than just "win a Cup". Perhaps Benning really did think that the team was a Ryan Miller away from a Stanley Cup. Or perhaps it was the optics more then anything. Sign a big name free agent goaltender, treat him well, so that the franchise that took an absolute beating in the press would still be seen as a team players want to go to; that the Luongo situation was one that was just mishandled by the previous regime, a speed bump. Who knows.

There's always more that comes into play. Purely as a fan, and one that's not living in the fishbowl from the outside looking in, the signing just screams of desperation; a hail mary because things were getting really bad. That said, while I'm not thrilled about some of the choices, it's still light years better than what the Leafs or the Oilers are doing to turn their franchises around.

This was my feeling of the signing as well. I've accepted that that ship has sailed. Miller was signed. He's #1.

I don't think his $6 million contract has a positive trade value so don't think he's going anywhere.

Accordingly, Miller is our #1 guy unless and until he becomes clearly inferior. We can argue about who's played better and so long as people don't dump on one or the other I don't care who's played better, though like most on CDC I have an opinion about it. It doesn't really matter whether we hold that argument or who "wins" it. Miller was signed to be #1. Long live the King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...