[Rumor] Canucks shopping Eddie Lack for second round pick

[nergish]

I don't doubt that Markstrom will be the future #1 in Vancouver. Even if Lack stays.

That's pretty bold man, the guy is 25 years old and has looked okay to downright terrible at the NHL level. I like him a lot and see massive potential, but let's have the guy play a season in the backup role before we start calling him the next one.

[Pears]

That's pretty bold man, the guy is 25 years old and has looked okay to downright terrible at the NHL level. I like him a lot and see massive potential, but let's have the guy play a season in the backup role before we start calling him the next one.

Ben Bishop didn't become a starter until just last year when he was 27, and he put up 37 wins.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

That's pretty bold man, the guy is 25 years old and has looked okay to downright terrible at the NHL level. I like him a lot and see massive potential, but let's have the guy play a season in the backup role before we start calling him the next one.

I’ll ask you this. How did Lack look at the NHL level when he was Markstrom’s age?

[nergish]

Ill ask you this. How did Lack look at the NHL level when he was Markstroms age?

I seriously can only recall one or two games, we didn't really give him any action. Was that your point?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I seriously can only recall one or two games, we didn't really give him any action. Was that your point?

At Markstroms age lack had zero NHL games played. He got his first NHL game oct 6 at the age of 25 and 10 months.

Markstrom is currently 25 and 5 months.

That's my point.

If markstrom happens to become a backup for Canucks next season which starts in October. Guess how old he will be. 25 and 10 months

[KKnight2014]

Lets hypothetically say that Pratt and Botchford are on to something. Which i still think we would have to add a Jensen or Clendenning etc. If i have a chance to take Nick Merkley I'm taking the deal and running. I think this is exactly the type of forward we need going forward and getting the 16th pick could really allow us to make some moves.

This is just what i would do.

Trade Van: 16th overall pick

Edm: Lack and possibly Jensen or second tier prospect.

Now i would select Merkley if still on the board, even though i know we need a PMD.

Trade the 23rd even if Kylington is available. Try and aim for a very early second and a low second or high 3rd.

Aim for Vince Dunn ( who i think is way better than Kylington) and either Jesper Lindgren, Filip Ahl, Ethan Bear, Brad Morrison.

I for the most part think that adds a lot more skill to our prospect pool. But what do i know, I'm just a guy.

[Spotted Zebra]

Vancouver always has and always will love it's backups.

When was Luongo most popular in his tenure here? Maybe his first year prior to the playoffs, and then his last ear when he was backing up Cory Shneider. Schneider took a lot of the blame in that first round sweep against the Sharks too.

He's a fan favourite now, but when he's playing 60 games for you posting inconsistent numbers with an ill times joke after a loss, I'm

Not sure he'll be quite as popular.

[Nuxfanabroad]

I'd accept Edm's 16th for Eddie, but not the 33rd. Still be sad to see the guy move on-I bet his teammates will be as well.

[Canucks Curse]

Lets hypothetically say that Pratt and Botchford are on to something. Which i still think we would have to add a Jensen or Clendenning etc. If i have a chance to take Nick Merkley I'm taking the deal and running. I think this is exactly the type of forward we need going forward and getting the 16th pick could really allow us to make some moves.

This is just what i would do.

Trade Van: 16th overall pick

Edm: Lack and possibly Jensen or second tier prospect.

Now i would select Merkley if still on the board, even though i know we need a PMD.

Trade the 23rd even if Kylington is available. Try and aim for a very early second and a low second or high 3rd.

Aim for Vince Dunn ( who i think is way better than Kylington) and either Jesper Lindgren, Filip Ahl, Ethan Bear, Brad Morrison.

I for the most part think that adds a lot more skill to our prospect pool. But what do i know, I'm just a guy.

This is exactly what I've been preaching!

BPA at 16

Is try trading our 23rd to CBJ for 34 and 38 and I love Dunn and Juulsen, although Juulsen will likely go late 1st, so I would maybe keep the 23rd and trade a d man to CBJ for rhychel, 34, 38- I mean its time to get the retool going and while hammer is good- with this one move we drastically improve the shape of our f corps in the future

We are on the same pg for sure- but my fear is that this is do reasonable that JB either has not thought of it or won't do it because moving hammer will be to "outside the box" for him

[peaches5]

I disagree completely.

I posted extensively with numbers last fall that Lack was actually playing better than Miller. Miller was letting in lots of goals but the team was scoring enough that they won anyway. Lack was getting the shaft-sometimes 2-3 weeks between games and for the first couple of months never at all except on the back half of back to backs.

I'm not going to bother repeating those posts. There were long and detailed.

While both had bad moments, Lack was the better goalie this season. That started in preseason (where Lack stopped 57 of 58 shots) and continued on despite the favourable way WD used Miller and the unfavourable way he used Lack. Admittedly, Lack's first game of the season, after sitting for about 3 weeks after a superb preseason and with the team tired on the back end of a back to back, was a bit of a stinker, which may give rise to why people say Lack was weak early. I have always attributed that to the coach, whose handling of backups this year (first Lack, then Markstrom) was imo atrocious. I don't think it was a coincidence that people thought Lack was failing when he was backup, then that Markstrom was failing while he was backup, while both of them were real good when they started-Lack in the NHL, Markstrom in the AHL.

otoh, I think Lack is going to be moved and while I'll be disappointed again about the Miller signing from last summer, it'll be nice to see Lack get a chance. I don't anticipate he'll get one here if Miller is healthy.

I guess you missed the stat where Miller had 6 shutouts this year to Lacks 2. Like I said when Miller is on his game there aren't many goalies better than him. Lack lets in weak goals and at times that any goal can't really be scored. Lack isnt Schneider he isn't a top 5 goalie in this league he is no where near as good as Miller we should be grateful if we get a 2nd round pick for him.

[flickyoursedin]

Would love it if they could get that 16th pick! Maybe Lack, Corrado (young steady D prospect) and Matthias' UFA rights (we don't have room to sign him and he provides size to there lineup)

[peaches5]

Would love it if they could get that 16th pick! Maybe Lack, Corrado (young steady D prospect) and Matthias' UFA rights (we don't have room to sign him and he provides size to there lineup)

Here's what I would do Hamhuis MAY waive to play for Edmonton as its still close to home. So I'd trade them Lack and Hamhuis for their 2016 first overall round pick.

[Me_]

Sorry but it makes no dif to me who the better tender is, Lack or Miller. It is all about unloading CAP and aligning the tenders more with the development time line of the Canucks. Plain and simple the Canucks are far from CUP competitive. The Calgary win over Van was not a upset! They were the two weakest teams to make the playoffs.

What is the point of saying that Miller could take the Canucks to a SC Final. It simply is not realistic. We don't know how much of a market exists for Miller. There might not be one. The Caveat in all this is what deal Benning can make.

Markstrom aligns much better with the next Canucks crop than Lack does; who is ready to be a full-time starter in this league.

Keeping Miller for another two years gets Markstrom right where Lack is today.

If all indications are correct, and the drastic changes continue to reap as much benefit as we've seen in one year, then Markstrom, trained by Miller, will be ready for a Cup run and that's if Miller hasn't one one by then.

[Me_]

Here's what I would do Hamhuis MAY waive to play for Edmonton as its still close to home. So I'd trade them Lack and Hamhuis for their 2016 first overall round pick.

So...

I believe that that would be another top five picks for Edmonton who still have some major growing pains to go through.

In a draft Benning believes to be better than this year's...

I like this deal.

[Boudrias]

Markstrom aligns much better with the next Canucks crop than Lack does; who is ready to be a full-time starter in this league.

Keeping Miller for another two years gets Markstrom right where Lack is today.

If all indications are correct, and the drastic changes continue to reap as much benefit as we've seen in one year, then Markstrom, trained by Miller, will be ready for a Cup run and that's if Miller hasn't one one by then.

The whole point is that two relatively young tenders, Lack and Markstrom, align with the development time line. Neither are totally proven entitities. Miller is training no one. Mellanson is the tender coach not Miller. Canucks will not be serious CUP contenders for

at least 4 years and that is if all the prospects turn to gold. If Miller is not moveable that pretty much tells fans where he stands in NHL stature. I think he is moveable and with the CAP relief of moving him Van can spend money on their d-core.

I have never suggested that Miller is not a decent tender. He played a number of excellent games last year. My point is the $6 mil

CAP hit cannot be justified when Lack can carry the load for considerably less. The real weakness for the Canucks is their d-core and they will never be serious CUP contenders until that is fixed. Benning signed Miller because he could not be certain Lack could carry the full load of a #1. This past season he more than proved that he could. If he has bumps along the way next year as a #1 so be it. He will continue to develop along with his younger team mates.

[peaches5]

The whole point is that two relatively young tenders, Lack and Markstrom, align with the development time line. Neither are totally proven entitities. Miller is training no one. Mellanson is the tender coach not Miller. Canucks will not be serious CUP contenders for

at least 4 years and that is if all the prospects turn to gold. If Miller is not moveable that pretty much tells fans where he stands in NHL stature. I think he is moveable and with the CAP relief of moving him Van can spend money on their d-core.

I have never suggested that Miller is not a decent tender. He played a number of excellent games last year. My point is the $6 mil

CAP hit cannot be justified when Lack can carry the load for considerably less. The real weakness for the Canucks is their d-core and they will never be serious CUP contenders until that is fixed. Benning signed Miller because he could not be certain Lack could carry the full load of a #1. This past season he more than proved that he could. If he has bumps along the way next year as a #1 so be it. He will continue to develop along with his younger team mates.

Okay Millers 6 million dollar cap hit is not the problem its Edler, Hamhuis and Bieksa all sitting with NTC. Basically if they all want to play hardball we have to wait until their contracts are up or buy them out. You could waive BIeksa I guess but the fanbase would not be happy to see that happen.

[Junkyard Dog]

The whole point is that two relatively young tenders, Lack and Markstrom, align with the development time line. Neither are totally proven entitities. Miller is training no one. Mellanson is the tender coach not Miller. Canucks will not be serious CUP contenders for

at least 4 years and that is if all the prospects turn to gold. If Miller is not moveable that pretty much tells fans where he stands in NHL stature. I think he is moveable and with the CAP relief of moving him Van can spend money on their d-core.

I have never suggested that Miller is not a decent tender. He played a number of excellent games last year. My point is the $6 mil

CAP hit cannot be justified when Lack can carry the load for considerably less. The real weakness for the Canucks is their d-core and they will never be serious CUP contenders until that is fixed. Benning signed Miller because he could not be certain Lack could carry the full load of a #1. This past season he more than proved that he could. If he has bumps along the way next year as a #1 so be it. He will continue to develop along with his younger team mates.

I think Miller and Lack are, as of now, on par talent wise. Difference is the experience and the mental strength. I think Lack can get better however but I don't think Benning and co. want to go through the growing pains of Lack/Markstrom.

Also Miller's 6M contract with 5 team NTC is more than likely unmovable unless cap is retained. Goalie market doesn't look too kind for Miller but for Lack it looks much more lovely.

Wanting to stay competitive while bringing up young players has been our motto. Lack/Markstrom might be a good duo in the future but it is the duo that's most likely to lose us the most games in the short run. Not sure management wants to go through that.

Cap isn't an issue moving forward. Vrbata, Hamhuis and Bieksa's contracts expire next year.

[Boudrias]

Okay Millers 6 million dollar cap hit is not the problem its Edler, Hamhuis and Bieksa all sitting with NTC. Basically if they all want to play hardball we have to wait until their contracts are up or buy them out. You could waive BIeksa I guess but the fanbase would not be happy to see that happen.

The NTC has no credence with me. If Van wants to move a NTC the player in question will probably waive it just as Garrison did.

Buying a player out is the last alternative. Any player with pride will not want to stay with a club that wants to move him. These veteran players that have NTC's have the right to be part of the process on where they possibly end up. Good for them.

IMHO I think that Van fan base has been coddled to an extent. The hard reality is that Van is not a contend and will not be a contender for a number of years. Since that is the case I believe that the vets should be moved while they have value. No way can Van get in the position of having to waive a player. They have to trade the vets. That includes Miller.

[Junkyard Dog]

The NTC has no credence with me. If Van wants to move a NTC the player in question will probably waive it just as Garrison did.

Buying a player out is the last alternative. Any player with pride will not want to stay with a club that wants to move him. These veteran players that have NTC's have the right to be part of the process on where they possibly end up. Good for them.

IMHO I think that Van fan base has been coddled to an extent. The hard reality is that Van is not a contend and will not be a contender for a number of years. Since that is the case I believe that the vets should be moved while they have value. No way can Van get in the position of having to waive a player. They have to trade the vets. That includes Miller.

It is not as easy as you make it sound.

Just because Garrison waived doesn't mean it will be easy. I don't find it a coincidence that Garrison went back to Florida, I am sure it was one of the few teams he said he would waive to. Kesler as well only gave us a few teams. We never got fair value for both players because of it

Now we have Miller with a 6M contract and 5 team NTC who's probably one of the last goalies you would trade for with the market how it is and FA coming up. Making him almost unmovable.

It also sounds like you're suggesting more of a rebuild. Management doesn't want that. They've made that pretty clear. Just because we won't be a contender doesn't mean we won't stop trying to be competitive. Developing young players in a winning environment is our motto and we can't do that without veterans.

Worked real well with Horvat so why sway from that?

[Boudrias]

It is not as easy as you make it sound.

Just because Garrison waived doesn't mean it will be easy. I don't find it a coincidence that Garrison went back to Florida, I am sure it was one of the few teams he said he would waive to. Kesler as well only gave us a few teams. We never got fair value for both players because of it

Now we have Miller with a 6M contract and 5 team NTC who's probably one of the last goalies you would trade for with the market how it is and FA coming up. Making him nearly unmovable.

It also sounds like you're suggesting more of a rebuild. Management doesn't want that. They've made that pretty clear.

There is what they say in public and what actually happens. You could be right. We will see what happens before the draft. As I said previously whether Miller has a 5 team list or not is somewhat irrelevant if Benning brings another team to Miller. Does Miller want to play backup to Lack? I think not. The $6 mil CAP hit is a issue for many teams but there are others who struggle to hit the minimum. What might sell Miller is the 2year term.