[Rumor] Canucks shopping Eddie Lack for second round pick

[firestorm238]

For a 2nd rounder I keep Lack as long as there's ANY hope of moving Miller. He's worth more to us than a 2nd rounder.

I'd give Miller away for the Cap savings, for a younger goalie entering his prime, and for a chance to see what Markstrom can do in the big leagues after a stellar AHL campaign.

Seriously Miller to San Jose for a fourth rounder and I'm happy.

[nergish]

I don't like the idea of giving up Lack for just a 2nd round pick. I thought he was worth more than that. A goalie of his calibre should command a more substantial return.

I think the real point is that he may very well be worth a 2nd rounder on the open market, but he's worth more to us.

I'd give Miller away for the Cap savings, for a younger goalie entering his prime, and for a chance to see what Markstrom can do in the big leagues after a stellar AHL campaign.

Seriously Miller to San Jose for a fourth rounder and I'm happy.

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Let's hope Benning learned from Gillis's mistakes.

No hard feelings. Thank you for your service Ryan. You looked kinda cool in our colours. We're getting younger now.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I think the real point is that he may very well be worth a 2nd rounder on the open market, but he's worth more to us.

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Let's hope Benning learned from Gillis's mistakes.

No hard feelings. Thank you for your service Ryan. You looked kinda cool in our colours. We're getting younger now.

Until SJ say’s “no thanks were not interested in Miller and his 6 million cap hit.”

Then what? We beg them to take him off our hands?

[nergish]

Until SJ say’s “no thanks were not interested in Miller and his 6 million cap hit.”

Then what? We beg them to take him off our hands?

Well, we're not attached to Lack the way we were Luongo or Schneider. If that's the case, we look to package Eddie and get something decent in return.

But I personally think San Jose would be silly not to offer a 4th or even a 3rd to get Miller. He's surely better than Niemi and they definitely need a change. I would think at that cost somebody would take a chance on him. It's not like he played poorly for us, we'd be fine with him in net next year, and that is still an option...

[Junkyard Dog]

Well, we're not attached to Lack the way we were Luongo or Schneider. If that's the case, we look to package Eddie and get something decent in return.

But I personally think San Jose would be silly not to offer a 4th or even a 3rd to get Miller. He's surely better than Niemi and they definitely need a change. I would think at that cost somebody would take a chance on him. It's not like he played poorly for us, we'd be fine with him in net next year, and that is still an option...

SJS doesn't want Miller's 6M cap hit. They have other problems that they have to address and that can be addressed come FA.

Unless we're willing to retain a large chunk of Miller's cap of course. It could probably catch their interest then.

[soshified]

I can't believe Benning wants to ditch Lack for only a measly 2nd rounder! If that happens what an outrage. I'm not gonna even bother clicking on the link I'm so peaved at Benning, it must be true. Unfreackin real...

If Schneider, an amazing starter for a horrible team gets you a measly 9th pick, what makes you think Lack, a really good backup who can start once in a while, will get you a 1st round pick?

[Gaudette Celly]

I'd even take a 3rd for miller and retain 1mill this yr just to get him off the books for 2016 UFA period. He'll id do any pick for miller like a 7th with no salary retained. I was very surprised to see such a large dollar value thrown out to a guy for 3 years who was in Vancouver touring the city on UFA opening day (that tells you there were not likely other suitors)

Or that Benning was on the ball.

[insomniac604]

I love Lack but with Markstrom and Demko on the horizon, and him being 27, it just isn't a fit. Lack deserves to be a starter. Something he won't get until Miller's contract expires and even then, there would be someone trying to push him onto the bench.

I would be happy to get an early 2nd or late 2nd + prospect.

However there might be a larger deal to be made. We have lots of (potentially) good F prospects lining up for a shot at the team. Names like Vey, Baertschi, Horvat and Kassian are a given. Throw in a push from the others and in 2-3 years we will have a serious logjam.

There are a few teams that could use a veteran on D and a 1A or 1B goalie.

Package Lack with Bieksa to a team like Carolina, San Jose or Edmonton and we could find ourselves drafting twice in the 1st round.

[thejazz97]

I love Lack but with Markstrom and Demko on the horizon, and him being 27, it just isn't a fit. Lack deserves to be a starter. Something he won't get until Miller's contract expires and even then, there would be someone trying to push him onto the bench.

I would be happy to get an early 2nd or late 2nd + prospect.

However there might be a larger deal to be made. We have lots of (potentially) good F prospects lining up for a shot at the team. Names like Vey, Baertschi, Horvat and Kassian are a given. Throw in a push from the others and in 2-3 years we will have a serious logjam.

There are a few teams that could use a veteran on D and a 1A or 1B goalie.

Package Lack with Bieksa to a team like Carolina, San Jose or Edmonton and we could find ourselves drafting twice in the 1st round.

I wouldn't mind Lack and Bieksa and Vey for SJ 2nd and Hertl (if that's a fair deal).

[greetingsfrombrazil]

Moving Lack is much easier than moving Miller, and his return is better than Markstrom's. Plus, Markstrom might turn into a very good goalie and come to bite us in the ass later.

Having said that, I totally understand if Benning trades Lack. He has one year left on a very cheap contract, which is really easy for any team to absorb, and his play will only improve. For a team that needs a goalie, this would be a great scenario. But we would be giving up someone that had a great season, carried the load in the most important time of the season while Miller was injured and will be even greater come training camp. For that, I would expect a great return. A mid 2nd doens't entice me enough, I would want a late 1st.

It would make more sense to trade Miller. But he's a Benning signing, is 34 years old (soon to be 35), has two years left on a $6M per year contract, didn't have great numbers and is not the Miller who won a Vezina in 2010. Who would take that over Lack? I wouldn't. His value isn't the greatest, plus he has a limited NTC.

Markstrom is doing great. He'll be a RFA come july, we could sign him to a Lack type of deal and see what he does next season. No reason to trade him for a 3rd this early.

If I were Benning, I would look at every possible trade scenario involving Miller. If he finds something good enough that makes sense, go with Lack and Markstrom next year. Plus, that frees us $6M in cap space, which would be a huge advantage for a future trade os signing. If the plan doesn't work, go for a Dubnyk style trade in the middle of the season.

[cdubuya]

2nd round pick sounds about right. Id rather trade miller but i doubt theres a ton of interest. San Jose or Anaheim could be fits, but I doubt anything comes of it.

[felixthecat_potvin]

Why do people want to keep Lack instead of Miller? A goalie who hasn't proven anything over a goalie who is consistently solid every year? Listen, we made the playoffs this year! I want us to go forward not backward! Trading Miller instead of Lack would mean rebuild time! NO NO NO! Here's what you do- you trade Lack and bring in Markstrom to back him up. You play Miller 55 games a season. Then, when Miller's contract is up, then you bring in Markstrom as your starter. Done!

[TmanVan]

Why do people want to keep Lack instead of Miller? A goalie who hasn't proven anything over a goalie who is consistently solid every year? Listen, we made the playoffs this year! I want us to go forward not backward! Trading Miller instead of Lack would mean rebuild time! NO NO NO! Here's what you do- you trade Lack and bring in Markstrom to back him up. You play Miller 55 games a season. Then, when Miller's contract is up, then you bring in Markstrom as your starter. Done!

You sound like a flames fan in 2010. It is rebuild time my friend, just accept it.

[CANUCK-EXPRESS]

I bet Edmonton jumps all over this.

[Roflcawptur]

I would hate to see Eddie moved for so little, maybe I just like him as a person but I feel safe with him as our #1

[Mackcanuck]

I would like to see Miller going to ANA

Trading Miller frees up $6M in Cap space, that is a Top 2 D-man or a top 6 forward!

ANA is a real possibility now that Anderson let in 5 goals in their game 7 at home.

An upgrade in goal is much needed and Miller is probably the best goalie available

That team now needs a shake up, They can't fire the coach as there are really no candidates left to acquire.

Getzlaf and Perry are getting older every day, the window is closing

They have a ton of Cap space and a ton of prospects

Trade Miller to ANA for a 2nd and a prospect

By trading Miller we get a 2nd, a prospect, $6M Cap space, and keep both Markstrom and Lack

[Gstank29]

I would like to see Miller going to ANA

Trading Miller frees up $6M in Cap space, that is a Top 2 D-man or a top 6 forward!

ANA is a real possibility now that Anderson let in 5 goals in their game 7 at home.

An upgrade in goal is much needed and Miller is probably the best goalie available

That team now needs a shake up, They can't fire the coach as there are really no candidates left to acquire.

Getzlaf and Perry are getting older every day, the window is closing

They have a ton of Cap space and a ton of prospects

Trade Miller to ANA for a 2nd and a prospect

By trading Miller we get a 2nd, a prospect, $6M Cap space, and keep both Markstrom and Lack

There are so many things wrong with this post it's not even funny

[thejazz97]

I would like to see Miller going to ANA

Trading Miller frees up $6M in Cap space, that is a Top 2 D-man or a top 6 forward!

ANA is a real possibility now that Anderson let in 5 goals in their game 7 at home.

An upgrade in goal is much needed and Miller is probably the best goalie available

That team now needs a shake up, They can't fire the coach as there are really no candidates left to acquire.

Getzlaf and Perry are getting older every day, the window is closing

They have a ton of Cap space and a ton of prospects

Trade Miller to ANA for a 2nd and a prospect

By trading Miller we get a 2nd, a prospect, $6M Cap space, and keep both Markstrom and Lack

Where did the idea of trading Miller to ANA come from?

Andersen is a perfectly good goalie, I had him in my fantasy pool for most of the year. He's tied for if not the only holder of youngest goalie to 50 wins. He lead Anaheim to No. 1 in the Conference, No. 2 in the league.

Miller is not an upgrade on Andersen.

[Derp...]

Thank-you, yes. This is nothing but a meme fabricated by the local hack media trying to stir up issues where there aren't any, and in their good fortune they can always find unknowledgable fans to lap it up and parrot it as if it's real.

As long as there are two or more goalies on the team, there will be a supposed "goalie controversy". Even if the Canucks had only one goalie in their entire organization it would be labeled a "goalie controversy". The Canucks are no different from any other team, it's just an invented non-issue to drum up gossip and hand-wringing... with the added bonus of taking digs at management (Tony you-know-who).

Of course he didn't read it. Trade them all and put Burrows in net so we can tank and draft high.

Derp is as derp does.

There's only one way to Derp, and that's ALL, THE, WAY.

[Sedintwinpowersactivate]

I'll take the rumour with a grain of salt, given that it's coming from Garrioch. However, I absolutely believe that the Canucks are having discussions with other teams about all three of their goalies. And as far as Lack goes, a 2nd round pick is pretty much the return you'd expect Benning to be seeking.

That said, I really hope that Benning is also testing the waters with Miller. In my opinion, he should investigate every possible option for moving Miller before trading Lack. And I mean every option, up to and including: (1) retaining as much as $3 million of Miller's $6 million AAV, (2) accepting as low a return as a late round pick or minor prospect, and/or (3) taking back a "cap dump" roster player in return for Miller.

If he tries all three of the above, and still can't find a team willing to take Miller, then I can accept that he has no choice but to look at moving either Lack or Markstrom. And if Miller can't be traded and is going to be playing in Vancouver for another two seasons (minimum), then Lack is the one who should get moved. Of the three goalies, Lack would almost certainly yield the highest return. And if Lack isn't going to be given the chance to be the starter in Vancouver, he deserves an opportunity somewhere else.

And it's not that I'm anything close to convinced that Lack is a truly "special" goaltender. To-date he's only really proven the ability to be a league average starting goalie in the NHL. And it's hard to say how much more improvement we can expect from him at this stage in his career. What I am convinced of, however, is that Lack and Miller are (at this point in time at least) pretty much a coin flip at best as to their overall effectiveness in the net. So it really comes down to salary and where the Canucks can best spend that money.

Even if the Canucks chose to extend Lack at nearly $5 million AAV, they could still trade Miller with a 50% salary retention and remain "cap neutral" over the next two seasons. And since I believe that the Canucks can re-sign Lack for a fair deal less than $5 million, and they should also be able to move Miller for less than 50% retention, there's basically no way they wouldn't gain cap space if Miller is moved. If there's no appreciable value gained, in terms of the quality of the player (between Miller and Lack), it makes zero sense to pay the higher premium between the two. That's if we assume that Miller and Lack are roughly equivalent. Personally, I believe Lack has more than likely already surpassed Miller (based on both their statistics and my own "eye test") and the numbers suggest that they are two players trending in very opposite directions. Given these factors, I'm convinced that Benning's first choice (if he's basing his decision only on what's best for the team) would be to get out from under Miller's $6 million AAV and extend Lack's contract as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, I don't believe Benning is really willing to pursue the course that would probably be required for the Canucks to move Miller. Unless there's a team willing to take Miller at his full $6 million and offer a decent return in the trade, I just don't see a deal happening. If Benning accepted any of the three conditions I listed earlier (to facilitate a trade), he would effectively be admitting that (1) his biggest free agent signing to-date was an overpayment and (2) he made a mistake in evaluating the Canucks' goaltending situation.

I just don't think Benning is willing to accept the optics of trading Miller for anything less than "full value" (ie: getting a "starting goaltender" level of return and with zero salary retention on the transaction). And unfortunately, I don't see any GM in the league making that kind of an offer for Miller.

I'd love to be proven wrong though.

Sid I agree with everything you have said as usual. I'm sure Benning is kicking himself for signing Miller to a 3 year deal instead of a 2 year deal. I think Miller would be quite easy to move on one year left, but GM's are likely leery of the extra year as Miller seems to be trending downward in his career.