hsedin33 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I don't even care who they trade anymore. I'm sick of these goal-tending controversies. People in both camps completely over-rating or under-rating both goalies. We really aren't winning the cup any time soon, so we can have a $10m four-legged donkey in net for all it really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I disagree. One could totally argue that without Pittsburgh getting Crobsy, they wouldn't be where they are today. And in 15 years, we will be satin the exacts ame thing about McDavid and the Oilers Yeah, but we saw how Crosby survived in the playoffs without a healthy Malkin. There was more to it than just the Crosby line. He was good but he wasn't everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I think we already drafted Horvat once. But I guess we could do it again. Agree with the above comments. I would rather keep Lack than Miller. Lack was better last year. (I know Miller loyalists will disagree but the numbers are clear.) And the relative ages mean Lack will probably get better and Miller will probably get worse over the next few years. But it sounds as though money is an issue. When Benning says he knows what it will take to keep Lack it sounds like it will take a lot. And if Sbisa is worth 3.6 million, what is Lack worth? (Not to mention Miller's 6 million and the contracts that Tanev and Dorsett got.) Sooner or later Benning has to stop overpaying. Given the salary issues and Benning's determination to get something for Lack instead of just letting him go as UFA it seems that one of Lack or Miller will go and I don't see how Miller's contract is tradeable. A cap hit of 6 million is way too much for an aging below average NHL goalie (which is what Miller was last year). I don't think the Canucks could even give Miller away. And there is his (not very limited) NTC to consider. Let's hope Markstrom can translate his excellent AHL performance to the NHL, because I think he will be with the Canucks next year one way or the other. Benning is not overpaying. He is paying market price for the privilege of keeping trading rights. Anyone he has signed so far can be traded anywhere. That is increased value from other years where full NTCs hampered the GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I could see Benning and Chiarelli getting together on a deal. Perhaps a goalie and a d-man and prospect for #16 pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiboynux4lifee******* Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I would also trade Miller, Lack will be fine in the regular season. Miller to Sanjose for a 3rd or 4th. Lack has proven he can be a decent goaltender, it also free's up lots of capspace to sign a decent defenceman. Cons, Miller just had a baby and he might be not willing to move at the moment Pros after watching Miller's wife on that horrible show 'NHL house wifes', I noticed she might not be a fan of BC weather in Canada. She might be the wild card who makes Miller waive to Sanjose. Here if anyone wants to watch that horrible show lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHDnrOO8A-Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Why would Eddie not fetch a decent return? Varlamov fetched a 1st and 2knd by memory. Schneider a 9th overall. Miller a first at the deadline 15 months ago. The market may not be HOT. However Eddie is both a proven backup. And has shown that he can play well enough as a starter to underpin a play off run. If he had done it for a few seasons I would expect more than I am about to suggest. But I expect a middle to late first or prospect equivalent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 While Lack would provide the best return for this team's inevitable goalie trade, I don't think it fits well with the club's stated "retool on the fly" approach. Moving Lack would leave us with Miller, a guy who's currently a league average starter (although arguably below average--at least stats-wise) and is likely only going to get worse as he declines and moves toward his eventual retirement. And while there are some very good prospects behind Miller (Markstrom, Demko, etc), there's no clear replacement (other than Lack) currently in the pipeline with anything close to proven NHL ability. That's fine to leave things uncertain beyond a year or two, if we're going to look at a full rebuild and possibly tanking a few seasons in the near future. But if we're going to try to stay competitive over several seasons while retooling, then we need to keep the guy who can provide league average starting goaltending (possibly above average--based on how he's trending and his dedication to training and improving his technique) for possibly the next five years or more (depending on the timeline and success of the goalie prospects behind him). That guy is Eddie Lack. Now I'd be fine trading Lack if we were going to do a true rebuild and gut the team by selling off player assets for picks and prospects. At least if that was actually the plan, but it's clearly not. So if we're committed to staying competitive while "retooling on the fly" then unless that process is only going to take a year or two, it just doesn't make sense to move Lack. I don't think the Canucks' future starter, whoever that ends up being, will be fully developed by the end of Miller's current contract. And Miller isn't the guy to take us through the transition period of developing one of the prospects into the team's next starting goalie. So we need to keep Lack and move him into the current starter role. The conservative approach to this would be to have Lack split duties with Miller next season and use Miller's current contract to slowly transition Lack into the full starter duties. That would, of course, also mean moving Markstrom this off season. I'd be pretty much OK with this plan (and it's what I expect Benning will do). The more risk/reward approach would be to move Miller out now (without retaining any salary if possible) and go with Lack and Markstrom next season. Like several others, I was supportive of this plan a year ago and I haven't changed my opinion (even after seeing Markstrom's mixed results with the big club this season). The big gain from moving Miller now is freeing up cap space, which could be used to immediately improve the D through adding another solid player to the back end. In terms of goaltending, I believe this would be a shortterm lateral move, giving us equally "average" quality netminding to keeping Miller, but with the potential to develop Lack/Markstrom into one of the league's better goalie tandems (if Lack continues as he's trending and Markstrom finally finds a way to translate his game at the NHL level). Far from guaranteed, especially with Markstrom, but worth the risk IMO of seeing things through and potentially setting this team up very well for the future (and even better given Demko in the wings and Vancouver becoming something of a "goalie factory"). If both Lack and Markstrom become too good to share the net, we can trade one for another solid asset. And if it didn't work out, we could easily sign a veteran backup for Lack. And again, the big upside is that moving Miller allows the team to immediately spend cap space on D improvements. Of course, eventually we'll lose much of this savings because we'll need to pay Lack a lot more money than he's making currently, but hopefully the cap increases over the next few years, and it's almost a guarantee that Lack's upcoming extension will still be cheaper than Miller's current $6 million AAV deal. But whatever happens, I just think that Lack is the best choice for taking us through the transition period of "retooling on the fly" because it's likely going to take more time than Miller can reasonable be expected to provide (even if you believe he's currently better than Lack). Personally, I believe Lack is already better than Miller and that this will only become more evident as Miller declines and Lack improves. So if we're going to provide a "winning atmosphere" for the retool, we need to keep the goalie that will provide the team with the most wins over the length of this transition. That much seems obvious. And while it might very well be a toss-up between Lack and Miller for who's a better starter in 2015-16, when you start looking beyond next season, it's hard to argue against Lack giving us more stability over the long-term (since Miller has a very short shelf-life IMO and probably doesn't have enough left at this point in his career to see this team through the transition period it's going to require). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Trade Lack, Jensen, Higgins, Hansen to Buffalo for the 2nd overall pick. Draft Eichel. That wouldn't even be close imo...Buffalo would be seeking quality,not quantity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaner Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I would also trade Miller, Lack will be fine in the regular season. Miller to Sanjose for a 3rd or 4th. Lack has proven he can be a decent goaltender, it also free's up lots of capspace to sign a decent defenceman. Cons, Miller just had a baby and he might be not willing to move at the moment Pros after watching Miller's wife on that horrible show 'NHL house wifes', I noticed she might not be a fan of BC weather in Canada. She might be the wild card who makes Miller waive to Sanjose. Here if anyone wants to watch that horrible show lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHDnrOO8A-Q Sure Miller has a 'sucky' contract but there is no way a 3rd or 4th is all he gets for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 My point being is that there would be teams interested IMO. But like you said, his NTC would be the deciding factor. Miller waive his NTC to Edmonton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 The mistake we made in the FIRST place was signing Miller. Getting into the playoffs this year we all knew would be a complete bust and indeed it was. I would far preferred to have been close to tanking and getting a top 5 pick. That would have made more sense then who we should trade. Not when you are trying to get the fans back in the building. This city can't handle a rebuild, the fans disappear too easily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Let's not kid ourselves, this was coming the instant we signed Miller. Windowdressing at this point as team issues stretch well beyond goaltending. But if we land another Horvat-type pick though this, yay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Miller waive his NTC to Edmonton Haha You never know (crossing fingers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Not when you are trying to get the fans back in the building. This city can't handle a rebuild, the fans disappear too easilyYou best get used to the idea of a rebuild. We're in one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I would also trade Miller, Lack will be fine in the regular season. Miller to Sanjose for a 3rd or 4th. Lack has proven he can be a decent goaltender, it also free's up lots of capspace to sign a decent defenceman. Cons, Miller just had a baby and he might be not willing to move at the moment Pros after watching Miller's wife on that horrible show 'NHL house wifes', I noticed she might not be a fan of BC weather in Canada. She might be the wild card who makes Miller waive to Sanjose. Here if anyone wants to watch that horrible show lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHDnrOO8A-Q Might not be a fan of BC weather? Her hubby worked in Buffalo and St Louis just before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psalm1975 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I always wonder.. why do we have so much drama with Goalies.. I don't care who, trade one of them, and get some decent help with #1) A power forward to help the Sedins.. else, just trade Sedins away and rebuild #2) Build our defence depth. We have two solid goalies, just need some help in the defence area, so that they have a chance to catch their breath and win some playoff games for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I wonder if we could retain a significant amount of Cap on a Miller trade for a solid asset. Say Miller + 2 Million retained (which we won't need if we're getting younger, and which will be for 2 more years at the most anyways) for a 1st or 2nd and prospect... No to retaining any sort of cap. It's the same mistake the idiot who Benning replaced made and it's simply unforgivable. I'd rather waive Miller if it comes down to it instead of crippling the team's cap flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Miller to San Jose seems totally viable, but I wouldn't expect the return to be much. Perhaps the Lack talk is to get SJ to raise stakes a bit, but after seeing some of these other trades lately, pffft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orka Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 the writings been on the wall that a goaltender would be gone in the offseason, not much surprise as JB is fairly open to moves being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 No to retaining any sort of cap. It's the same mistake the idiot who Benning replaced made and it's simply unforgivable. I'd rather waive Miller if it comes down to it instead of crippling the team's cap flexibility. Waiving him would still leave ~$5.1m on our cap...so not really much help. We'd be better of retaining $1-$2m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.