[TRADE] EDDIE TO CAROLINA

[KelownaCanucksFan]

Lack was never going to go for a second, let alone a first. He is 1 year away from being UFA, is 27 and may not sign with the team he was traded to. Frankly I'm happy with the third pick for a player that is still unproven. Take off the Lack colored glasses and you will see that this was a good trade.

edit: spelling and grammar

[LuckyLuciano]

I wonder if Eddie's dad and the legend of Lack get as much coverage in Carolina.

[Mongrel]

This trade was pathetic. Lack has more value than those two picks. Absolute joke. But it had to be done one way or the other. I'm gonna miss you EDDIE! You brought the crowd to its feet with your phenomenal saves. I wish you were a Canuck more longer. When you become a free agent, please come back here. You will dearly be missed EDDIE especially EDDIE chants.

I don't know what you expected but to use the word pathetic I have to think you grossly over rated Lack and his worth. He's a backup who can pick up the work load if need be. Likely at best he'll be part of a tandem.

[thema]

Frankly I'm happy with the third pick for a player that is still unproven.

Good grief: if, after 82 starts in 2 years Eddie is "unproven" then what do you call Markstrom? Answer: our back up goalie for next season. Be very afraid.

[CALGARY!]

I don't think JB got fleeced in this deal. I do, however wonder how one of the first things he does as GM is add Miller creating a new goalie controversy, just as the last one had ended.

At any rate an early third and an extra pick late next season isn't too bad, considering this year had a lot of goalies on the market, and still has a few coming up in free agency, tough to get leverage when the market was/is a little over stocked.

[TOMapleLaughs]

I don't think JB got fleeced in this deal. I do, however wonder how one of the first things he does as GM is add Miller creating a new goalie controversy, just as the last one had ended.

At any rate an early third and an extra pick late next season isn't too bad, considering this year had a lot of goalies on the market, and still has a few coming up in free agency, tough to get leverage when the market was/is a little over stocked.

Getting rid of Lack ended the 'goaltending controversy' though, so there's that.

I think a bigger fiasco would have been losing Markstrom on waivers, which could've already happened, but whatevs.

[EdgarM]

Good grief: if, after 82 starts in 2 years Eddie is "unproven" then what do you call Markstrom? Answer: our back up goalie for next season. Be very afraid.

That is my concern as well. To me its a gamble that I hope pays off. The same goes for Sbisa. Benning is High on Baertch, Sbisa and Markstrom. I hope he is right because none of them have proved themselves yet.

[oldnews]

I don't think JB got fleeced in this deal. I do, however wonder how one of the first things he does as GM is add Miller creating a new goalie controversy, just as the last one had ended.

At any rate an early third and an extra pick late next season isn't too bad, considering this year had a lot of goalies on the market, and still has a few coming up in free agency, tough to get leverage when the market was/is a little over stocked.

I don't agree with you there - there wasn't a controversy - it's Eddie's emergence and how he handled the role down the stretch securing a playoff spot, combined with Miller's inconsistent and not terribly inspiring season that generated the legitimate question of who should be the starter moving forward.

Imo bringing in MIller in itself was not necessarily a mistake - it's the (three year) term was problematic.

Every team with a good secon goaltender approaching readiness has a potential 'controversy' on their hands.

I hope this team always has this 'problem'.

[Nino]

Good grief: if, after 82 starts in 2 years Eddie is "unproven" then what do you call Markstrom? Answer: our back up goalie for next season. Be very afraid.

Eddie is "unproven" as a starting goalie, he's a great backup. FYI he went to a team the he will be a backup or a 1b.... Why? Hint it's because he's unproven as a starter and is not a high end potential that teams are willing to take chances on. The third was all we could get so get over it.

Markstrom has proven that he is a very capable goalie and can handle a starting roll. We are grooming him the right way and I'm sure he will have ups and downs as he developed but he will be our backup for the next few years. We have a very capable starter in miller so I'm not sure why your so concerned with our tending.

[CALGARY!]

I don't agree with you there - there wasn't a controversy - it's Eddie's emergence and how he handled the role down the stretch securing a playoff spot, combined with Miller's inconsistent and not terribly inspiring season that generated the legitimate question of who should be the starter moving forward.

Imo bringing in MIller in itself was not necessarily a mistake - it's the (three year) term was problematic.

Every team with a good secon goaltender approaching readiness has a potential 'controversy' on their hands.

I hope this team always has this 'problem'.

You do make a good point, I suppose bringing Miller in, at the time, made pretty good sense, Lack did seem quite overwhelmed after having to shoulder the starters load when Luongo left. I take that back, the Miller signing made sense at the time.

And, so long as he stays healthy, it makes sense to keep him around just to see how well/fast Markstrom can adapt to full time NHL duties

[thema]

Eddie is "unproven" as a starting goalie, he's a great backup. FYI he went to a team the he will be a backup or a 1b.... Why? Hint it's because he's unproven as a starter and is not a high end potential that teams are willing to take chances on. The third was all we could get so get over it.

Markstrom has proven that he is a very capable goalie and can handle a starting roll. We are grooming him the right way and I'm sure he will have ups and downs as he developed but he will be our backup for the next few years. We have a very capable starter in miller so I'm not sure why your so concerned with our tending.

I'm concerned with our tending because the guy we kept has shown that he is no money goalie (despite his salary) and his backup has so far been a disaster at the NHL level for FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS. Eddie clearly outplayed Miller; this is obvious if you understand how goaltending and the distribution of starts works. Miller had his starts carefully managed, Eddie was either left to rot on the bench for weeks at a time or had to play every game for weeks at a time and he STILL had a better save %. Markstrom has only shown that he is a capable goalie at the AHL level and his 26th birthday is only months away so the idea that Lack is too old doesn't hold water either. Miller, like Lou has shown that he can post great numbers only on a bad team; put him on a decent team and he is... ordinary.

[EdgarM]

I don't agree with you there - there wasn't a controversy - it's Eddie's emergence and how he handled the role down the stretch securing a playoff spot, combined with Miller's inconsistent and not terribly inspiring season that generated the legitimate question of who should be the starter moving forward.

Imo bringing in MIller in itself was not necessarily a mistake - it's the (three year) term was problematic.

Every team with a good secon goaltender approaching readiness has a potential 'controversy' on their hands.

I hope this team always has this 'problem'.

Don't agree. I believe SOME on CDC beileved there was a controversy. No. 1 goalie was injured so "back up" came in to fill in. No. 1 won 29 games the first half of the season and the back up won 18. Did not see a problem with Millers game other than he started out slow at the beginning of the season. Some people make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[oldnews]

Don't agree. I believe SOME on CDC beileved there was a controversy. No. 1 goalie was injured so "back up" came in to fill in. No. 1 won 29 games the first half of the season and the back up won 18. Did not see a problem with Millers game other than he started out slow at the beginning of the season. Some people make a mountain out of a mole hill.

you missed the point entirely. what you're talking about is a controversy that emerged to end this season.

that has nothing to do with the context of the signing at the time.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I'm concerned with our tending because the guy we kept has shown that he is no money goalie (despite his salary) and his backup has so far been a disaster at the NHL level for FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS. Eddie clearly outplayed Miller; this is obvious if you understand how goaltending and the distribution of starts works. Miller had his starts carefully managed, Eddie was either left to rot on the bench for weeks at a time or had to play every game for weeks at a time and he STILL had a better save %. Markstrom has only shown that he is a capable goalie at the AHL level and his 26th birthday is only months away so the idea that Lack is too old doesn't hold water either. Miller, like Lou has shown that he can post great numbers only on a bad team; put him on a decent team and he is... ordinary.

Lack in the summer 2013 was declared canucks back up behind Luongo. At the time he had zero NHL experience, that seemed to turn out alright. Considering Markstrom is already better (and younger) than Lack was at that time, I think we will be just fine. There is a lot less risk in Markstrom being a backup next season then people lead on to believe.

Markstrom is exactly 2 years younger than Lack, Both birthdays are in January, Lack born in 88, Markstrom born in 1990. So the idea that the younger goalie makes more sense for the canucks timeline does hold water. "In only months". You mean 6 months, ie half a year. I guess you can then say in only month Lack will have his 28th birthday, He will be 28 and still a back up.

Also you act as if every NHL game Markstrom has played has been a (as you put it) “disaster”. He’s played decent games and he’s played really good games in the NHL. It’s his consistency and mental strength at the NHL level he needs to find. We have two season to work with him on that.

I also wouldn’t say Eddie outplayed Miller. If you are going to use that logic than I guess Talbot outplayed Lundqvist and NYR’s should have traded the King and kept the younger cheaper goalie in Talbot?

The excuses keep piling up but we don’t know how Miller would have handled the second half of the season had he not got hurt. He could have very well but up better numbers than Lack. He could have bombed. We don’t know so we can’t use that a deterrent. All we can judge is based on the games they did play. In that, Miller picked up 59 points, and Lack picked up 40 points. Call it easy games, call it hard games, all Miller would have had to do was finish the season off with .500 hockey and he would have got the canucks into playoffs. Up to Millers injury, there was no reason for us to believe that he couldn’t pull out .500 hockey. The same .500 hockey that Lack played.

[Canada Hockey Place]

Doesn't really add up.

TheVancouver Canucks' third-round pick went to the Anaheim Ducks as the result of a trade on June 27, 2014 that sent Nick Bonino, Luca Sbisa and a first and third-round pick in 2014 to Vancouver in exchange for Ryan Kesler and this pick.

2015 3rd round picked ended up being 84th overall. ANA picked Deven Sideroff. RW, Kamloops Blazers.

2014 3rd round pick was used to get Dorsett from NYR via ANA. NYR picked 85 overall, Keegan Iverson, C, Winterhawks.

3rd round pick for Lack was 66 overall used to draft Brisebois. LD,

To me it seems like a lot of running around to jump 20 spot up in the draft.

[thundernuts]

I still think it was a horrible trade. Obviously, the Canucks got what they could for him. I'm sure they explored every avenue, and the deal they took was the best one they could get. However, I feel that he was worth more to the organization as a player than what they traded him for.

I would rather they trade Markstrom for whatever they could get for him, and keep Lack.

I get the cap implications, I get that Markstrom will likely be as good, and possibly better than Lack down the road, but I still feel Lack had great worth to this franchise beyond his on ice performance.

Having said that, what's done is done. There will be a new crop of players joining the team over the next few years, and I'm sure there will be likeable and charismatic players to take the place of the Lacks and Bieksas that move on.

[MikeGillis58]

I don't get it. Why didn't the Canucks enter the season with Miller and Lack, play Lack a lot of games during the first half of the season to build up his trade value, then sell him to the highest bidder at the deadline.

[thema]

Also you act as if every NHL game Markstrom has played has been a (as you put it) “disaster”. He’s played decent games and he’s played really good games in the NHL. It’s his consistency and mental strength at the NHL level he needs to find. We have two season to work with him on that.

I defy you to find me one single "really good" game that Markstrom has played in his FOUR YEARS of NHL experience. Since he only has 11 wins in 42 NHL games it might be tough. Only in his first year in the NHL was he even decent: 23 games played 8 wins 14 losses and a .901 save %. Not terrible for a lousy Florida team but nothing to get excited about. Unfortunately he has not had a save % over .880 since which is completely terrible for any goalie with NHL starter aspirations. 3 wins in 3 years (in 19 attempts); sure go show me his "really great games".

[two drink minimum]

The D has played the same as it has for the past 5 years the difference is Lu and Schneider are not in net.

You're off your rocker

[Baking Soda]

I'll admit that I think Carolina got a better trade, but considering that JB had to hurry that trade if he wanted a draft pick in return it was a decent trade. If he hadn't traded Lack, we'd be here with 3 goalies again, and we might have lost markstrom to waivers