theminister Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I found the second quote most interesting. 3-5 players from Utica on the team next year. To me that's Corrado, Clendening, Baertschi, Markstrom (if not traded) and one of Virtanen/Gaunce/Grenier. Well...this is what everyone wants, right? To still be decent while we insert younger players into the lineup? It should make for a more interesting product over the next couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 how? Just because someone doesn't want to give up an asset worth while doesn't mean they wouldn't have signed him for FREE The Canucks would likely give away Miller for a 7th if it meant retaining Lack and Markstrom and not retaining any of Miller's salary. If someone wanted Miller, they could get him without giving up much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Higgins + Lack for grigs and buffs 2nd is more than fair. Lack is more proven than grigs and the 2nd and Higgins balance the difference b/c higgy is prob worth a 3rd. This would be fantastic b/c we could potential have our #1 C that we've been coveting. Of course it comes with some risk but the reward would be worth it. If higgy is gone it frees up some cap space and a roster spot(Baertschi). Buff gets lack a young, solid starting G, and higgy to mentor the kids. Higgins is from NY also so maybe he'd waive. Works out for both teams. Why would Higgins waive a NTC for Buffalo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 The Canucks would likely give away Miller for a 7th if it meant retaining Lack and Markstrom and not retaining any of Miller's salary. If someone wanted Miller, they could get him without giving up much. I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 The Canucks would likely give away Miller for a 7th if it meant retaining Lack and Markstrom and not retaining any of Miller's salary. If someone wanted Miller, they could get him without giving up much. Benning made a committment to Miller. He's not just going to flip him as soon as a younger goalie is showing promise. The plan was always to trade one of Lack or Markstrom, and now he's following through with that plan. It comes down to weighing how much we could get for either one, versus how likely it is either one is going to become a legit number 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Well...this is what everyone wants, right? To still be decent while we insert younger players into the lineup? It should make for a more interesting product over the next couple of years. Yeah a lot of people will get their wish, the crying and bitching will be unbearable at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 He has had the last 2 years when Lu left and when Miller was injured plus last years playoffs. How much more of a chance does he need? And........He is not even close to Scneids so that is not a real comparison. Just cause he is a likeable guy does not make him a great goalie. I'm not entirely sure what your point is. If your'e trying to say that Lack isn't ready to be a starter and Miller is the better option then here's a few numbers for you. Lack - 2013/14 - GP 41, GAA 2.41, Sv% .912 2014/15 - GP 41, GAA 2.45, Sv% .921 Both of these sets of stats were better than Miller's this season. And of course Lack's first year was as a rookie playing under the disastrous Tortorella experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 The Canucks would likely give away Miller for a 7th if it meant retaining Lack and Markstrom and not retaining any of Miller's salary. If someone wanted Miller, they could get him without giving up much. I think basically make no UFA EVER want to sign with the Canucks. There is more to consider than just "we can't trade him". There are plenty of team who would want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I'm not entirely sure what your point is. If your'e trying to say that Lack isn't ready to be a starter and Miller is the better option then here's a few numbers for you. Lack - 2013/14 - GP 41, GAA 2.41, Sv% .912 2014/15 - GP 41, GAA 2.45, Sv% .921 Both of these sets of stats were better than Miller's this season. And of course Lack's first year was as a rookie playing under the disastrous Tortorella experiment. DID you really just throw out some stats without any context Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakrami Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I wonder what's the difference between a report and some journalist's opinion you are linking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felixthecat_potvin Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Everyone thinking the Miller signing was a mistake, give your heads a shake. After 2014, nobody would've trusted Lack alone in net, especially with Markstrom as his back up. We needed a goalie badly, and Miller played a lot better then a lot of you give him credit for. Without Miller, we likely would have missed the playoffs, and Lack and Markstrom's values would be at an all time low. Miller really helped develop Eddie, and Markstrom's year in Utica was huge. That really helped his development come along. I think trading Lack makes the most sense. Markstrom's ceiling is much higher, and I think being back up to Miller is going to do wonders for him. Agreed, I see Lack as nothing more than an average starter. I'd say Markstrom has the potential to be elite, and is also younger than Lack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I'm not entirely sure what your point is. If your'e trying to say that Lack isn't ready to be a starter and Miller is the better option then here's a few numbers for you. Lack - 2013/14 - GP 41, GAA 2.41, Sv% .912 2014/15 - GP 41, GAA 2.45, Sv% .921 Both of these sets of stats were better than Miller's this season. And of course Lack's first year was as a rookie playing under the disastrous Tortorella experiment. Is there a reason you left the W-L totals as well? Or the stats for last years playoffs? Probably because they favored Miller. You can twist stats around to make them what ever you want. I like that last part where "the excuse" is thrown in there. There always has to be at least one. I will take Millers 13 plus years experience in the NHL to a young goalie who has played 2 half seasons and a not so good playoff performance anytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs50 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Is there a reason you left the W-L totals as well? Or the stats for last years playoffs? Probably because they favored Miller. You can twist stats around to make them what ever you want. I like that last part where "the excuse" is thrown in there. There always has to be at least one. I will take Millers 13 plus years experience in the NHL to a young goalie who has played 2 half seasons and a not so good playoff performance anytime.Miller might be the better goalie but is he 5 million better. Hell no. That's why I'd keep Lack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Miller might be the better goalie but is he 5 million better. Hell no. That's why I'd keep Lack. lack going to be 4-5 million so your point is mute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Miller might be the better goalie but is he 5 million better. Hell no. That's why I'd keep Lack. Who's going to mentor Markstrom better? Lack is that much cheaper for one season. If we want Markstrom to develop learning from a veteran is a much better idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Miller might be the better goalie but is he 5 million better. Hell no. That's why I'd keep Lack. A steal if you look at Lundquists 10 million!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 A steal if you look at Lundquists 10 million!!! Lack>>>>>Lundquist by the salary logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxieMan98 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I'd like to think if Minnesota is not going to resign dubnyk for whatever reason, we could move lack to minny for maybe dumba? Maybe not any other pieces like coyle or spurgeon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 It's going to be Grigorenko for Lack (if Grigorenko stays in the NHL). Just makes too much sense for both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs50 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 lack going to be 4-5 million so your point is muteYeah after a year he will get around 4 mill. That's still cheap ish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.