Pimp C Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Sure if the plan is rebuilding. Doesn't matter if we're rebuilding or contending, trading the inferior goalie (Miller) is what we should be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Doesn't matter if we're rebuilding or contending, trading the inferior goalie (Miller) is what we should be doing. Markstrom should be moved then. Lack is a great backup and Miller is an above average starter. We've had success with not one but TWO goalies in the last 4 out of 5 seasons. The plan is to create a successful environment for our youngsters hence why Miller was signed. Without Miller we probably would be in the outside looking in. 28-15-1 is well worth the contract he makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pimp C Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Markstrom should be moved then. Lack is a great backup and Miller is an above average starter. We've had success with not one but TWO goalies in the last 4 out of 5 seasons. The plan is to create a successful environment for our youngsters hence why Miller was signed. Without Miller we probably would be in the outside looking in. 28-15-1 is well worth the contract he makes. Lack is better than Miller. Miller is not worth his current contract, not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Lack is better than Miller. Miller is not worth his current contract, not even close. Then state facts besides just saying so. That way you support your statement. Lack is inconistent, same with Miller. Miller though has a much better record than Lack and has started in double the amount of games. Lack has zero playoff experience in the NHL while Miller has 53 playoff games played with respectable numbers. JB wants us to develop youngsters in a winning environment. JB signed Miller for that such reason and so far it has more than paid off. 6M over 3 years is a great contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter.S-Kerouac Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I would much rather move Miller don't care where that 6m could be spent on one hell of a Dman. I would be fine with Miller blasted to the moon in return for pic/pix (of ice crystals and alien fossils). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I think if Lack can maintain a starter's level of play for the rest of the season or until Miller is back then trading Miller becomes an option to explore. Not that it's THE option to explore, but it is an option. Obviously though Miller has an NTC which will lessen his value. I think Miller's a great goalie, he's had a great career and deserves a tremendous level of respect (probably more than we give him) based on what he's done but he's now older and on the decline. Again, I'm not saying we SHOULD trade Miller (as it stands now he gives us the best chance to win on most nights) but IF Lack can establish himself over the next few weeks here then I think it definitely becomes a viable option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pimp C Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Lack has more value, but Markstrom has more potential. The logical move would be to package Eddie for either a young scorer or young top 4 D man. Trading the best goalie in the organization, and one that is only 27 is the opposite of logical. Markstrom has a lot of talent but Lack has one thing that Markstrom will never have. An NHL level mental game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.