Canadian Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 If Benning did not want to draft so badly and held onto Lack. That 2016 1st is probably in our pocket. Bloody obvious SJS needed a goalie badly. Jones: A) Is younger Has higher potential C) Is not UFA at year's end Lack being a Ufa changes all his value compared to players like Jonea or Lehner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyLuciano Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 lol wow gmjb wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miked1101 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Jones: A) Is younger Has higher potential C) Is not UFA at year's end Lack being a Ufa changes all his value compared to players like Jonea or Lehner Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jones an RFA right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Juice Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 User Actions Follow Ryan Biech@ryanbiech Talbot had a 0.926 S% last year Lack had a 0.921 S% last year Jones had a 0.906 S% last year Lehner had a 0.905 S% last year #Canucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierdaddy Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Give your head a shake ... it proves there was NO MARKET for Lack. Not the other way around. If anyone would have made a better offer GMJB would have taken it. Especially when its obvious the club was intent on moving him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakrami Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Jones: A) Is younger Has higher potential C) Is not UFA at year's end Lack being a Ufa changes all his value compared to players like Jonea or Lehner Why does everybody from Lehner to Talbot have higher potential than Lack again? For all we know Lack can play like a Vezina candidate next year. Stop making up reasons to feel good about bad trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 HAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Juice Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Give your head a shake ... it proves there was NO MARKET for Lack. Not the other way around. If anyone would have made a better offer GMJB would have taken it. Especially when its obvious the club was intent on moving him. Yet there was a market for three unproven goalies? Lack showed he's capable of playing upwards of 40 games a season. Talbot, Lehner and Jones? Not so much. Yes, I know the teams were probably paying for the potential that they become better quality goalies, but it's not like there wasn't a market for goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucksfor2012 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 90% sure we don't get a first from SJS regardless of whether we kept Lack or not. While Lack might be more "ready" right now, I think most hockey people would say that Jones' ceiling is higher than Lack's. Not to mention that Lack has had middling results (especially in the playoffs) while Jones has been given sheltered minutes by virtue of playing behind Quick & by being on one of the best teams in the league. San Jose is taking a gamble similar to what we are on Markstrom; if Jones reaches his potential this season the first rounder was well worth it. The difference is Jones has far more experience and is probably a safer bet than Markstrom, & we didn't have to trade away a first rounder for him. The introduction of Jones and Khudobin into the goalie market really lowered the value of Lack and Talbot, because teams had better options to pursue in Lehner & Jones. Of the goalies that were available Jones & Lehner likely had the best ceilings, and so teams were willing to pay first rounders for them. Talbot and Lack are likely good starting goaltenders, but doubtful to be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancan3322 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Wtf... DW got Sweeney'd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Juice Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Goalie market was always between Lack, Talbot, Lehner, and Jones in terms of the trade market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 45]User Actions FollowRyan Biech@ryanbiech Talbot had a 0.926 S% last year Lack had a 0.921 S% last year Jones had a 0.906 S% last year Lehner had a 0.905 S% last year #Canucks GM JB out BJed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Lehner, Talbot, Jones all worth 1st round picks. Eddie Lack....well not so much, because reason. Canucks don't seem to understand 'market value'. Too busy trying to figure out why they can't get more for 34 year old soon to be UFA defenseman with an NTC. Hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robongo Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Give your head a shake ... it proves there was NO MARKET for Lack. Not the other way around. If anyone would have made a better offer GMJB would have taken it. Especially when its obvious the club was intent on moving him. Part of the problem though was JB underselling Lack. He was stating publicly that he wasnt comfortable going into the season with a tandem of Lack and Markstrom and basically telling anyone that would listen that he'd take a second for Lack. Compare that to GMs like Sather whom which shot for the moon right away with Talbot and expected a first round pick nd hyped up their asset. Benning is a brutal negotiator and salesman simple as that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
people please Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 "lack went for market value"- Benning slurpers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 How did I already know this would instantly become the "But Lack's worth was........" thread instead of the Jones trade thread.....or are those the same thing;)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternalCanuckFan Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 The trend definitely seems to be to trade young goalies early to maximize return, unless they are proven #1s. For everyone who is upset at the difference in the return for Lack, what was eye opening to me was the return for Talbot who had arguably equal or superior stats to Lack and who is around the same age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Bang Boogie Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Wow, are all those goalies that much better than Lack? Or are we all simply massively overrating Lack on CDC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_Lu1ngo Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Wow boston turned lucic into quite a return 2 1sts and couple prospects. other than taking 2nd rounders with their firsts lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 If Benning does something similar to what Wilson just did, then he'll be axed down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.