"We could've moved Ryan Miller. There were teams calling on Ryan Miller." - Jim Benning

[elvis15]

Exactly. We're at a time where we can afford to take chances even if they might put us at risk of missing the playoffs. So long as a general status quo as far as performance in the standings is also possible, we should be looking for the options that allow us better chances at re-tooling on the fly successfully.

[MaxVerstappen33]

Yikes! Benning's other moves were defendable, Miller for Lack is a tough one. Miller is the better goalie but capspace, age and Canucks won't be competing this year anyways.

This is disgusting. Miller should have been dumped on the spot.

fire Benning out of a cannon

[TheGuardian_]

Smoke and Mirrors,

Can't sign FA's because there is no cap space....

Miller couldn't play the whole season last year and stated the west coast travel was grueling, so maybe fewer points without Lack...

What GM or President is going to say the team is headed to the bottom to get what everyone already knows they need, two top picks to replace the last two top picks....

The new bridge will help traffic get in and out of the city, if they can ever figure out where to put it.....

The reduction of automobile lanes in the city will not affect traffic or shopping....

There is no need to have bicycles licenced, now if only I can find that guy that hit me and broke my hip, he rode a bike, he had on a helmet, I have no idea of how tall he was, I have no idea as to the colour of is hair or length because of the helmet, but the bike had two wheels,, to tell the truth it was hard to tell the sex of the rider as I was squirming on the ground and could only see the riders ass and back of the bike as they rode away. And the city gave me a ticket to boot for crossing in the bike lane, figures.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Sure, but the idiots are always the loudest. Why care what they have to say?

This is disgusting. Miller should have been dumped on the spot.

fire Benning out of a cannon

Is it franchise crippling? No

[aGENT]

Dare I ask how that's an idiotic statement?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Dare I ask how that's an idiotic statement?

No, you were answer.

You're right it's not a franchise crippler. No reason to freak out and claim lets fire the GM about move that doesn't have a huge impact on the club.

Honestly we can argue forever if it was the right or wrong move. One side will provide valid facts and the other side will rebuttal with valid facts. But at the end of the day unless, we can see this team 5 years from now, no one can be right or wrong and we're likely arguing about something that has little impact on the canucks organization. This isn't the Neely trade. This isn't giving up Seguin and Hamilton for 6 years and 7 playoffs games of Kessel. This will likely have about the same impact as the Hodgson and Kassian deal, no real impact on either team

[aGENT]

No, you were answer.

You're right it's not a franchise crippler. No reason to freak out and claim lets fire the GM about move that doesn't have a huge impact on the club.

Honestly we can argue forever if it was the right or wrong move. One side will provide valid facts and the other side will rebuttal with valid facts. But at the end of the day unless, we can see this team 5 years from now, no one can be right or wrong and we're likely arguing about something that has little impact on the canucks organization. This isn't the Neely trade. This isn't giving up Seguin and Hamilton for 6 years and 7 playoffs games of Kessel. This will likely have about the same impact as the Hodgson and Kassian deal, no real impact on either team

Well fair enough. I haven't once called for Benning to be fired FWIW. In fact I like most of what he's done.

But this particular move (and to a lesser degree the non move on Matthias) are small cracks in his performance and as I said earlier are "safe" moves when the organization should be embracing risk/reward moves and youth at nearly any opportunity. They didn't do that here and IMO it was a mistake given where the team is.

[elvis15]

Well, we'll see how our goaltending pans out over the next couple years and how Lack does.

It may be a good time to note (I posted the article in the Demko Talk thread) but the Canucks would like Demko to turn pro after next year. That'd be AHL to start I'm sure, but maybe they're just biding time and really felt Demko is so more ahead of schedule that they just went for the best return period.

I hope that works out for us and we aren't left with Miller leaving, Markstrom failing and Demko not ready yet, but we'll see.

Well fair enough. I haven't once called for Benning to be fired FWIW. In fact I like most of what he's done.

But this particular move (and to a lesser degree the non move on Matthias) are small cracks in his performance and as I said earlier are "safe" moves when the organization should be embracing risk/reward moves and youth at nearly any opportunity. They didn't do that here and IMO it was a mistake given where the team is.

I've been questioning a few decisions - nothing outright to want to fire him for but cumulatively making me wonder about if we couldn't be doing much better.

[aGENT]

I've been questioning a few decisions - nothing outright to want to fire him for but cumulatively making me wonder about if we couldn't be doing much better.

Those are the two only real thorns in my side as yet (Miller/Matthias). The rest I can largely reconcile given context etc. Hardly enough to get bent out of shape over but definitely enough to give me pause and concern we could have certainly done better in those two situations specifically.

[GreyHatnDart]

Those are the two only real thorns in my side as yet (Miller/Matthias). The rest I can largely reconcile given context etc. Hardly enough to get bent out of shape over but definitely enough to give me pause and concern we could have certainly done better in those two situations specifically.

While I can agree with those two in particular to a certain extent, Benning has largely set up the team for the 2016 off season. Mostly with cap space, and hopefully with the draft as this season progresses. I'll fully reserve judgement on moves (or non moves, however you want to look at it) until then.

It amuses me when some around here don't understand what Benning is trying to accomplish. I think at this point it's quite clear, and realistically it's quite a challenge:

Get younger, faster, with plenty of character. All while drafting well AND maintaining a competitive team. Pretty tall, ambitious order. From what I can see, overall he's done well along these lines in his short tenure.

[elvis15]

Those are the two only real thorns in my side as yet (Miller/Matthias). The rest I can largely reconcile given context etc. Hardly enough to get bent out of shape over but definitely enough to give me pause and concern we could have certainly done better in those two situations specifically.

Sbisa and Dorsett's early extensions considering the current prices and declining San Jose's 2016 2nd only to end up taking Anaheim's 2016 2nd for Bieksa also have been 'interesting' choices in my mind. I didn't like the Kesler deal or the strategy behind our drafting at the highest level but those I can deal with to an extent.

[aGENT]

Sbisa and Dorsett's early extensions considering the current prices and declining San Jose's 2016 2nd only to end up taking Anaheim's 2016 2nd for Bieksa also have been 'interesting' choices in my mind. I didn't like the Kesler deal or the strategy behind our drafting at the highest level but those I can deal with to an extent.

Tanev's contract was also a bit rich IMO.

Just think, if they'd have knocked a few hundred thousand off each of Tanev, Sbisa and Dorsett's deals, they likely wouldn't be having an issue with cap space to sign Baer at presumably $1.5-$2m right now...

Yet I was routinely told in the Tanev thread I was a silly for worrying about a few hundred k here and a few hundred k there and was reminded how much cap was coming off the books in the next few years... Yet there it is, rearing it's ugly head...

Tanev at $3.8-$4.0, Sbisa at $3.0-$3.2 and Dorsett at $2.2-$$2.4 could be making a difference right now. Heck, even just one of them.

[theminister]

What I consider a contributing factor in the decision, if the belief is truly that Miller COULD have been moved, is that JB envisions the potential to move him at a later date to get a return that would be added to the Lack return.

If we could have moved Miller for scraps, with no cap retention just to keep Lack, then it could have equally been viewable as poor asset management from the other standpoint.

Assuming Lack would have been re-signed for a moderate 3 year deal, there is no guarantee that he would have fetched more at the end of that contract than he did now, taking into consideration how he might have played and what his cap would have been. The market for goalies may not have been any better.

If the management doesn't see us being a threat until Demko comes in, if they didn't see Lack as any better than average potential, then holding onto Miller and Marky for two years is logical. Miller may get us a decent pick in 18 months time thereby adding to the cache.

Is there risk with this approach? Yes, sure there is. However, if we are treading water anyway, and would have done so with Lack regardless, then the risk might be being overstated. The risk would be equally measurable if we 'sold low' on Miller. Until we see how the situation plays out, and what if any return we DO get for him as his contract winds down, then it's impossible to know for sure if we moved the right asset.

Long story short, what I'm suggesting is that the club decided they would be moving both goalies in relative short order anyway and that the 3rd, 7th + Miller return is greater than Miller now and Lack in 2-3 years, especially if they believed Lack would want a NTC of any description in his new contract. This is a possibility, considering his affection for the city and option to take a 'hometown discount,' as many suggest, that would need to be factored in. Especially so if he had a good year and the expectation would he that we would have required providing years that we weren't prepared to do.

In this context I see the move fitting in exactly as JB stated the direction would be...remain a decent team while we stockpile assets, clearing a future for Marky/Demko and getting a good prospect in Brisebois that will have had 3 years of more development at that stage. In fact, I believe that needing another 2-3 years of overall prospect development, to see what we actually have, was a big part of the decision making process. Miller gets us there with no more commitment and Lack would have taken another investment in time to get a contract signed. By the time that Demko might be ready to take over for Marky then we will have the theoretical return from Miller ready to compete for a job on the roster, the additional asset we would not have acquired from doing the reverse now.

This view doesn't wade into the 'who is a better goalie' discussion, intentionally, as that will prove itself out regardless. It's really just a point about return.

[poetica]

The problem with the theory that they don't see Lack as having any potential to get any better is the rumors that they refused to trade him within our division. If they don't think he's a good goalie with the possibility of being even better, why not? Surely they'd have a better chance against a goalie they know so well than one they'd need to scout. They already know his weaknesses and how to exploit them, so why not jump at the opportunity to trade him to Edmonton (if that deal was indeed on the table and at least comparable)? By possibly refusing to trade him within our division it makes it clear that they see the talent Lack has and didn't want to be on the other end of the ice from him. That only makes their decision to trade him for next to nothing even more suspect.

While I agree that they are, intentionally or not, giving the impression that they have given up on this team being a real competitor until more of the young guys come into their own and more of the older guys lose their spots to them, the idea that they would keep Miller to bide time for Demko is ridiculous (from a planning standpoint.) It's not likely Miller will keep playing at any competitive level until Demko is ready. And I still believe that they're majorly rolling the dice on Markstrom with no real proof that he'll ever be what they hope he will. It just makes no sense to have traded Lack and kept Markstrom, especially when the return was so small. In all likelihood, we'll be on the market for a starter next season and having to give up far more than we got in return for Lack. And worse still, we could end up with a starter who isn't as good as Lack for our efforts.

The other day I described being a Canucks fan right now like a rough spot in a marriage. "I still love you and I'm not leaving, but you're sleeping on the couch because I can't look at your face right now!"

[ForsbergTheGreat]

The problem with the theory that they don't see Lack as having any potential to get any better is the rumors that they refused to trade him within our division. If they don't think he's a good goalie with the possibility of being even better, why not? Surely they'd have a better chance against a goalie they know so well than one they'd need to scout. They already know his weaknesses and how to exploit them, so why not jump at the opportunity to trade him to Edmonton (if that deal was indeed on the table and at least comparable)? By possibly refusing to trade him within our division it makes it clear that they see the talent Lack has and didn't want to be on the other end of the ice from him. That only makes their decision to trade him for next to nothing even more suspect.

While I agree that they are, intentionally or not, giving the impression that they have given up on this team being a real competitor until more of the young guys come into their own and more of the older guys lose their spots to them, the idea that they would keep Miller to bide time for Demko is ridiculous (from a planning standpoint.) It's not likely Miller will keep playing at any competitive level until Demko is ready. And I still believe that they're majorly rolling the dice on Markstrom with no real proof that he'll ever be what they hope he will. It just makes no sense to have traded Lack and kept Markstrom, especially when the return was so small. In all likelihood, we'll be on the market for a starter next season and having to give up far more than we got in return for Lack. And worse still, we could end up with a starter who isn't as good as Lack for our efforts.

The other day I described being a Canucks fan right now like a rough spot in a marriage. "I still love you and I'm not leaving, but you're sleeping on the couch because I can't look at your face right now!"

When you say “they” you mean peoples reasoning on CDC? because nowhere has Benning said he doesn’t believe Lack has room to grow.

When you say “they are just buying time for Demko again you mean peoples reasoning on CDC? because again nowhere has Benning Miller will hold the fort until Demko

Miller can provide canucks solid goaltending for the next two years. So then you turn to whose next inline. You have two youngish goalies. You evaluate what you have and move out the other. It comes down to in two years which goalies do you want taking over the crease. In my opinion, (I’m not going to put words In Benning’s mouth) they felt Markstrom has the greater ceiling and he’s also 2 years younger on top of that. It doesn’t mean that they think Lack sucks and will not getting any better. They just feel that in two years’ time Markstrom will be the better goalie. But in the meantime while we develop Markstrom you still don’t want to help out teams you will play against. So you don’t trade him to a division rival. Although a 57^th from Edmonton vs a 66^th & a 7^th round from Carolina, you take the Carolina deal every day.

You don’t have faith in Markstrom but I and many others do. You’re basing your opinion completely on “your” one judgement that you don’t think Markstrom will amount to anything. And that likely has more to do with lack of visibly (not seeing him play often) than anything else. Just like why people think Lack is better than Talbot, they saw Lack play 41 games this year, they saw Talbot play once. But if you can look past that idea that you don’t think Markstrom will become anything, this “it doesn’t make any sense” feeling that you have becomes crystal clear. Canucks rolled the dice in 2013 when they went with a 25 goalies with zero NHL starts. I’m sure there was a lot of fear and whining with people wanting Gillis to go out and get a proven back up at the time in case Luongo gets hurt. It seemed to turn out ok, Maybe NHL mgmt. has a pretty good idea on what they are doing.

The same questions people have about Markstrom’s mental strength in the NHL can be asked about how will Lack handle the starting role. Both, you can give pro’s and con’s on what you believe but there is no right or wrong answer, not until we see how they play this year. The only real proven asset we had is Miller.

And if your right and canucks are looking for a goalie next year. There is one who is becoming UFA at the end of the season

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Those are the two only real thorns in my side as yet (Miller/Matthias). The rest I can largely reconcile given context etc. Hardly enough to get bent out of shape over but definitely enough to give me pause and concern we could have certainly done better in those two situations specifically.

Here’s the thing, most of these moves are still wait and see. Unless you can predict the future you don’t really know how they will turn out.

Matthias

At the time you can make an argument for either way. Matthias could have continued scoring right into playoffs and helped canucks get past the flames in round one. After round one you never know what can happen especially with miller coming back or injuries. He could have been a the role player that we needed in playoffs, but instead he disappeared. Now looking back at it you can say well I wish we would have traded him but it still doesn’t make it the right move at the time.

Tons of teams did the exact very same thing, Green in WSH, Frolik in WPG, Ward in WSH, Martin in PITs and Jackman in STL. All lost to UFA with zero compensation. It’s just a part of the business.

We should just be thank full that we didn’t go out and spend an asset at the deadline acquiring a player for 20 games of service like; Franson in NSH, Sekeras in LA, Stewart in MIN, Winnik in PITS.

Overall for Matthias, it’s not much of a bump in the road. For all we know Benning did put him on the market, along with Kassian and the returns were only in the Bartkowski and a 5^th type value. We don’t know, it’s easy for us to say we could have got a 3^rd round pick for him but that’s just pure speculation. Speculation isn’t really a good support to base an argument on.

Sbisa

This deal could still turn out very good for us. Sbisa has shown signs of growth throughout the year and he’s still young. His contract starts this next off season so we can’t really judge his value until we see him play this year. IF he develops into a physical top 4 D we got a really good deal out of him. Let’s wait and see how he plays after being accustomed to the canucks culture for a year.

Lack

Again there are a ton of parts that can make this deal good vs bad. Bad would be if Lack turns into a Vezina winning for years to come. Good would be if Markstrom develops into a number one goalie, Miller plays solid for the next two years giving canucks a chance to win every night, and really good would be that plus Brisebois turns into a top 4 D for the canucks.

Even to some extent Baertschi, Vey, and McCann are all wait and see. We can’t really judge these deals until we see what happens down the road. In five years from now they could like no brainers or they could look like “how could you make that decision”. The reality is every move/ non move made in the NHL is a risk. But every move is calculated to reduce risk. IE, trading Lack and keeping Miller.

The best example in recent years is looking at the Booth deal and seeing how many times people have swayed back and forth over that deal. At the time we were all happy we finally got a top 6 power forward. For a while it was good, he was putting up good numbers until he got hurt. Then injury after injury everyone started hating on the deal. But now that he’s gone Cassels (the 3^rd that came with booth in the deal) is emerging as a steal of a pick and once again it’s looking like a good deal.

[elvis15]

What I consider a contributing factor in the decision, if the belief is truly that Miller COULD have been moved, is that JB envisions the potential to move him at a later date to get a return that would be added to the Lack return.

If we could have moved Miller for scraps, with no cap retention just to keep Lack, then it could have equally been viewable as poor asset management from the other standpoint.

...

The flip side to that is Miller would be moved for scraps either way but keeping Lack and giving him more exposure as a starter could bump up his return being traded at a later date if Markstrom does pan out. I have doubts Miller will ever really get us any kind of significant return though, even if we retain cap to make it more enticing, and I'm not as sure Miller has as much chance to increase his value as Lack would.

You're absolutely right that we could be moving both in short order anyway, but that hinges on either Markstrom very quickly turning it around at the NHL level and/or Demko making an impact sooner than expected. That's probably hoping for too much, and considering that might not even happen at the end of Miller's contract I'd have preferred being able to keep Lack and allow him to carry the load until we get a goalie who can take over.

Plus, if Lack doesn't ever really elevate above an average starter consistently, then he could well be happy to be here as a well -loved and effective back up. Or maybe he does become that starter, and it's even better!

[RUPERTKBD]

When you say “they” you mean peoples reasoning on CDC? because nowhere has Benning said he doesn’t believe Lack has room to grow.

When you say “they are just buying time for Demko again you mean peoples reasoning on CDC? because again nowhere has Benning Miller will hold the fort until Demko

Miller can provide canucks solid goaltending for the next two years. So then you turn to whose next inline. You have two youngish goalies. You evaluate what you have and move out the other. It comes down to in two years which goalies do you want taking over the crease. In my opinion, (I’m not going to put words In Benning’s mouth) they felt Markstrom has the greater ceiling and he’s also 2 years younger on top of that. It doesn’t mean that they think Lack sucks and will not getting any better. They just feel that in two years’ time Markstrom will be the better goalie. But in the meantime while we develop Markstrom you still don’t want to help out teams you will play against. So you don’t trade him to a division rival. Although a 57^th from Edmonton vs a 66^th & a 7^th round from Carolina, you take the Carolina deal every day.

You don’t have faith in Markstrom but I and many others do. You’re basing your opinion completely on “your” one judgement that you don’t think Markstrom will amount to anything. And that likely has more to do with lack of visibly (not seeing him play often) than anything else. Just like why people think Lack is better than Talbot, they saw Lack play 41 games this year, they saw Talbot play once. But if you can look past that idea that you don’t think Markstrom will become anything, this “it doesn’t make any sense” feeling that you have becomes crystal clear. Canucks rolled the dice in 2013 when they went with a 25 goalies with zero NHL starts. I’m sure there was a lot of fear and whining with people wanting Gillis to go out and get a proven back up at the time in case Luongo gets hurt. It seemed to turn out ok, Maybe NHL mgmt. has a pretty good idea on what they are doing.

The same questions people have about Markstrom’s mental strength in the NHL can be asked about how will Lack handle the starting role. Both, you can give pro’s and con’s on what you believe but there is no right or wrong answer, not until we see how they play this year. The only real proven asset we had is Miller.

And if your right and canucks are looking for a goalie next year. There is one who is becoming UFA at the end of the season

A sensible post, but there are a couple of things:

When you say that Benning has never said that Lack doesn't have room to grow, I have to think back to his comment of "the entire league sees him as a backup". As the Canucks are part of the league, one has to assume that the Lack = Backup theory is Benning's take as well.

Personally, I think he was spouting BS in an attempt to make the trade more palatable to fans who preferred Lack over Miller, but I suspect we'll never know the truth to that one.

My second issue is your assertion that Miller can provide solid goaltending for the next two seasons. While it's possible that you and I have a different opinion on what solid goaltending is, the fact is his numbers are well below average and are trending downward.

While it's entirely possible that he experiences a renaissance next season, the more likely scenario is that his numbers remain similar to last year, or decline even more.

Lack OTOH, has been trending in the opposite direction and it seems to me that those who are suggesting that he's never going to get better and/or will always be a backup in the NHL have far less to back up those statements than those suggesting the reverse.

[aGENT]

Here’s the thing, most of these moves are still wait and see. Unless you can predict the future you don’t really know how they will turn out.

Matthias

At the time you can make an argument for either way. Matthias could have continued scoring right into playoffs and helped canucks get past the flames in round one. After round one you never know what can happen especially with miller coming back or injuries. He could have been a the role player that we needed in playoffs, but instead he disappeared. Now looking back at it you can say well I wish we would have traded him but it still doesn’t make it the right move at the time.

Tons of teams did the exact very same thing, Green in WSH, Frolik in WPG, Ward in WSH, Martin in PITs and Jackman in STL. All lost to UFA with zero compensation. It’s just a part of the business.

We should just be thank full that we didn’t go out and spend an asset at the deadline acquiring a player for 20 games of service like; Franson in NSH, Sekeras in LA, Stewart in MIN, Winnik in PITS.

Overall for Matthias, it’s not much of a bump in the road. For all we know Benning did put him on the market, along with Kassian and the returns were only in the Bartkowski and a 5^th type value. We don’t know, it’s easy for us to say we could have got a 3^rd round pick for him but that’s just pure speculation. Speculation isn’t really a good support to base an argument on.

Sbisa

This deal could still turn out very good for us. Sbisa has shown signs of growth throughout the year and he’s still young. His contract starts this next off season so we can’t really judge his value until we see him play this year. IF he develops into a physical top 4 D we got a really good deal out of him. Let’s wait and see how he plays after being accustomed to the canucks culture for a year.

Lack

Again there are a ton of parts that can make this deal good vs bad. Bad would be if Lack turns into a Vezina winning for years to come. Good would be if Markstrom develops into a number one goalie, Miller plays solid for the next two years giving canucks a chance to win every night, and really good would be that plus Brisebois turns into a top 4 D for the canucks.

Even to some extent Baertschi, Vey, and McCann are all wait and see. We can’t really judge these deals until we see what happens down the road. In five years from now they could like no brainers or they could look like “how could you make that decision”. The reality is every move/ non move made in the NHL is a risk. But every move is calculated to reduce risk. IE, trading Lack and keeping Miller.

The best example in recent years is looking at the Booth deal and seeing how many times people have swayed back and forth over that deal. At the time we were all happy we finally got a top 6 power forward. For a while it was good, he was putting up good numbers until he got hurt. Then injury after injury everyone started hating on the deal. But now that he’s gone Cassels (the 3^rd that came with booth in the deal) is emerging as a steal of a pick and once again it’s looking like a good deal.

But we did wait and see re: Matthias.

As many of us could plainly see at the deadline, he wasn't going to make any grand difference to us getting to, or in the playoffs. nor did he. Nor were any of us thinking it likely the Canucks were going on some epic Cinderella run anyway. He should have been moved. Period.

Teams like Washington, Pittsburgh, Winnipeg and St Louis had realistic playoff hopes. They were all at least somewhat contending teams and largely, trending in a vastly different direction. That context makes all the difference.

I have no problem with the Sbisa contract other than it's a few hundred K too rich given what he's shown so far. But by all means it could be a good contract by the end of it.

[elvis15]

When you say “they” you mean peoples reasoning on CDC? because nowhere has Benning said he doesn’t believe Lack has room to grow.

When you say “they are just buying time for Demko again you mean peoples reasoning on CDC? because again nowhere has Benning Miller will hold the fort until Demko

...

poetica didn't say either of those things, but in the context of theminister's post she's noting how moving Lack now might signify they don't feel his value will increase (why be worried about trading him in the division then?) and that they feel Demko will be ready to take over either directly from Miller or from Markstrom. Taking a lesser return for a goalie that can play now and waiting for the next top prospect holds risk we won't have NHL level goaltending if Miller drops off and Markstrom isn't ready.

They want Demko to go pro in a year, but even an aggressive timeline for him would have at least one year of AHL before he sticks on the NHL roster. And even that might not be as the starter right away. so at least 2-3 years for Demko, with Miller gone in 2 (we'd likely have to keep him full term rather than being able to trade him for assets) and Markstrom having to take over for a year in the starting role.

But don't put your projections on us, I'm a Markstrom fan and hope he makes it yet I can see the risk is still fairly high he can't put it together at the NHL level. I can also see how well Talbot has done and that he can be a good goalie (but likely isn't so good as to be able to fix Edmonton's problems) similar to what Lack can also do. The evidence that we do have though shows Lack has handled his time as a starter better than Markstrom has in any kind of NHL minutes.

That may change for Markstrom but the risk is still there. Miller still has risk as an older goalie missing significant time after an injury. Demko has risk as a prospect who hasn't proven anything yet at a pro level. And yes, Lack has risk taking on a starter role over a full season but that risk is much lower in my eyes based on the evidence we have.