Benning could look at trading Eddie Lack - Article

[Gollumpus]

I've been stating basically the same thing for pages.

And not a late first, I want a 10-20 pick at minimum. Just because a late 1st/early 2nd is better than what either Markstrom or Miller would fetch you doesn't make it good value for Lack or good asset management. I'd rather have Miller's cap space and paltry trade assets than 35th pick and lose Lack for less than he's worth just keeping to us.

Only way I move Lack is if there's literally ZERO, ZILCH, NADA market for Miller (even retaining a bit of salary or taking back a "bad" $1m-$2m contract) or if we can package Lack to get a much needed 20-25 year old, future top2/4 PMD.

Just to move the conversation along here: I looked at the teams who are picking in that range. The only one who "might" be that interested in a goalie is Edmonton (using Pittsburgh's pick at 16th). Some of those other teams might like to acquire Lack, but not in a trade for their 1st round pick (perhaps a 2nd and a prospect?).

And I don't see Edmonton being interested enough in Lack that they would trade the 16th pick in order to acquire him (except maybe with the Canucks' 1st in the deal as well).

regards,

G.

[aGENT]

Miller and Bieksa yields what?

A gooey mess in my pants?

And I don't see Edmonton being interested enough in Lack that they would trade the 16th pick in order to acquire him (except maybe with the Canucks' 1st in the deal as well).

regards,

G.

All the more reason to keep Lack/move Miller

[Gollumpus]

A gooey mess in my pants?

All the more reason to keep Lack/move Miller

Yup. Just speaking to your point.

This being said, if a deal for a 2nd and/or a very good prospect came along (eg. potential top-4 d-man with size, mobility and hockey smarts) I could be swayed.

regards,

G.

[aGENT]

Yup. Just speaking to your point.

This being said, if a deal for a 2nd and/or a very good prospect came along (eg. potential top-4 d-man with size, mobility and hockey smarts) I could be swayed.

regards,

G.

I'd be ok with just the very good D prospect in that case!

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I've been stating basically the same thing for pages.

And not a late first, I want a 10-20 pick at minimum. Just because a late 1st/early 2nd is better than what either Markstrom or Miller would fetch you doesn't make it good value for Lack or good asset management. I'd rather have Miller's cap space and paltry trade assets than 35th pick and lose Lack for less than he's worth just keeping to us.

Only way I move Lack is if there's literally ZERO, ZILCH, NADA market for Miller (even retaining a bit of salary or taking back a "bad" $1m-$2m contract) or if we can package Lack to get a much needed 20-25 year old, future top2/4 PMD.

Benning is the one with scouting history. We can say we only accept a 10-20 or 20-35 (is what I say), but realistically it all comes down to who Benning has his eye on. If he sees a player he’s had his on eye slip (or is still available) at a spot that we can deal Lack for than that’s the move we make. We’re not forced to make a move, so we don’t have to settle. The number doesn’t matter, it’s the player that matters and that is all up to Benning to make the call on. If Benning see’s someone available at 10,16,21,31 or even 33 that he is really high on, then were in a position to make a move.

Take last year for example. Rumour was, there were a lot of teams offering canucks deals to get the 24^th when McCann was still available, other GM’s had their eye on him.

I’d even be ok with Benning picking up a 2016 first round pick. He did mention he thinks it’s a deeper draft. Lack +, to BUF/CAR or straight up for SJ/PHI, lots of risk to where it could end up but we could get lucky and pick up Forsberg like the caps did when they dealt Varlamov to AV’s. Again it's up to Benning, If he thinks all we can get for lack this year is a 25th and next year he think there will be a better pick available at any position in the first round than i'm up for it.

[Mackcanuck]

If ANA does not win Game 7 at home against CHI Saturday, then they will have to look at their goal tending.

Of the 4 Goalies left still playing, Anderson is the weakest! They are built to win now, but their goalie sucks!

Remember, Last year they got knocked out by LAK in a game 7

I think a trade of Miller to ANA would work out, ANA has the Cap and with only 2 seasons left on Millers contract it allows more time for Gibson to season.

ANA is loaded with young prospects that Benning would drool over.

We clear $6M in Cap from Miller and pick up a prospect and a 2nd or 3rd rd pick and go with Lack and Markstrom in net,

ANA gets a top 10 Goalie for their next Cup run next season

[TOMapleLaughs]

Yes, Anaheim was supposed to miss the playoffs because of their 'weak goaltending'.

...crickets...

[aGENT]

Benning is the one with scouting history. We can say we only accept a 10-20 or 20-35 (is what I say), but realistically it all comes down to who Benning has his eye on. If he sees a player he’s had his on eye slip (or is still available) at a spot that we can deal Lack for than that’s the move we make. We’re not forced to make a move, so we don’t have to settle. The number doesn’t matter, it’s the player that matters and that is all up to Benning to make the call on. If Benning see’s someone available at 10,16,21,31 or even 33 that he is really high on, then were in a position to make a move.

Take last year for example. Rumour was, there were a lot of teams offering canucks deals to get the 24^th when McCann was still available, other GM’s had their eye on him.

I’d even be ok with Benning picking up a 2016 first round pick. He did mention he thinks it’s a deeper draft. Lack +, to BUF/CAR or straight up for SJ/PHI, lots of risk to where it could end up but we could get lucky and pick up Forsberg like the caps did when they dealt Varlamov to AV’s. Again it's up to Benning, If he thinks all we can get for lack this year is a 25th and next year he think there will be a better pick available at any position in the first round than i'm up for it.

And at 10-20 there's bound to me more guys available that Benning is "high on" and are less risk to bust (or not drop to us) while keeping our 23'rd pick and maybe taking more of a boom/bust, risk/reward guy there. Or heck, maybe selling both to move in to the top 10.

I repeat, Lack's worth more to us than a 25-35 pick.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Realistically there's not much of a market. I mean Winnipeg could have picked up Markstrom for free last season and they didn't. I guess slightly different scenario.

Possible destinations for a starting goaltender:

Edmonton, San Jose, St. Louis, Buffalo

Backup:

Philly, NYI, Dallas, CBJ, Arizona

Available free agents: Dubnyk, Niemi, Neuvirth, Emery, Greiss, Labarbs, Lindback, Ramo, Mcelliney, Enroth, Gustavsson, Fasth

I have a feeling Edmonton will throw money at Niemi.

Dubnyk will likely be retained by Minny.

St. Louis may stand pat with Elliott and Allen.

That leaves Buffalo and San Jose as locations for a starter. And here we are with Ryan Miller and a wife who would like very much to go to SoCal.

It would not shock me if a Miller trade was already worked out, and we're just waiting for the draft.

But I'm wondering what Buffalo does. I'd expect them to be movers this off-season for sure. Guess we'll see.

If we land San Jose's 1st rounder for Miller, that would be sweet. In that case I'd aim for Zacha, Provorov, assuming Hanifin was gone. Werenski is also good. Not sold on Barzal. Seems like a certain 2nd line center and a longshot 1st line center, and we have a lot of centers.

But more likely we'd end up with San Jose's 2nd rounder, 39th overall, tops. In that case I'd take a long look at Rasmus Andersson. He's like a ppg OHL defenseman of the year but is still amazingly underrated in draft rankings. That would be a real nice piece to add on RHD.

Their next pick is 70th overall. Hey, Rasmus could fall that far, if the lists are true.

If a warm body has to come back our way, then we could pick up Raffi's junk contract, Ben Smith or Mike Brown. Cheap, low-term crap.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

And at 10-20 there's bound to me more guys available that Benning is "high on" and are less risk to bust (or not drop to us) while keeping our 23'rd pick and maybe taking more of a boom/bust, risk/reward guy there. Or heck, maybe selling both to move in to the top 10.

I repeat, Lack's worth more to us than a 25-35 pick.

Again thats according to you. Lot of teams trade down because they are not sold on the consensus pick. The deal doesnt have to be finalized until prior to the pick being made. Its not like hes trading him today and hoping a player is still available at that time. If Benning has his eye on a player whos set to go 10-15 and he slips to 16 or 21, does it mean its not worth it for Benning to trade for this pick because hes now outside of your range.

If Canucks could have only got a 13^th at the time for Schneider and for some reason Horvat (the guy Gilliis has his eye on) slipped to that spot, do they not make that deal? At the end of the day people dont remember the spot the player was picked at, they remember the player they got in return. Were not trading for the pick, were trading for the player. If Benning is sold on a guy enough to give up Lack for him, Than so am I.

Put it this way, we can all believe that canucks have a list of players in their own ranking, they likely have their future predictions on what each player they think can become. Other teams might have a few other players in their top 15 compared to the canucks top 15. If Benning has Barzal in his 11th spot and he drops drop to 21. Do we take that deal if BUF offers it up,

Technically in the draft he is 21 but according to Benning rankings he is a top 15 pick.

Thats my point, we dont know who Benning has in his 10-20 range. If one of Benning 10-20 players is available at a spot we can give lack up for do we still not do it? Youre getting so stuck on the number that youre forgetting that all teams scouts are different. You say you wont trade for anything less than a 10-20 pick, well one of Benning 10-20 players could very well be available at a range we can trade lack for. Were not trading him at a trade deadline, were trading at the moment of the pick. We know exactly what player we are getting with that pick,

[Team Bagues]

I thought Miller was a bum except for the first couple of months when games were easier.

He was real good at letting him 4, 5, 6, or 7 goals.

[goblix]

anyone think that Lack + 23rd enough to get a 5-10 pick ?

I do like Barzal but I think I like Marner better, more of a straight up offensive guy than Barzal but main thing is he is a centre that can also play RW.

Anyways as ForsbergTheGreat said, the draft is a fluid beast, GMs talk constantly and have an idea who they like at the spot they are shooting for... Much like Gillis when he sent Schneider to devils for 9th overall. I doubt he does if Horvat wasn't available

[DrJockitch]

Well of 5-10 the only team that could use him is San Jose and I just don't see them dropping down that far for him.

Lack is generally not regarded as well around the league as by his fans here. While they are also the one of those 5 teams that you could see trading draft picks to get better now but that would be more for a goalie like Schneider than Lack or Miller.

I am very curious to see how Benning handles the goaltender logjam and hopefully retool blueline.

[RonMexico]

Well of 5-10 the only team that could use him is San Jose and I just don't see them dropping down that far for him.

Lack is generally not regarded as well around the league as by his fans here. While they are also the one of those 5 teams that you could see trading draft picks to get better now but that would be more for a goalie like Schneider than Lack or Miller.

I am very curious to see how Benning handles the goaltender logjam and hopefully retool blueline.

The hard part is, the Canucks are not the only team with a goalie log jam and it appears many of them are looking to offload a talented backup. Expect a lower return than normal for any goalie moved.

[aGENT]

The hard part is, the Canucks are not the only team with a goalie log jam and it appears many of them are looking to offload a talented backup. Expect a lower return than normal for any goalie moved.

Just another reason to move Miller and at least gain cap space.