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

[poetica]

I didn't know that Lack signed an extension with the hurricanes?

More cap space doesn't help us if we didn't plan on doing anything with it. In order to improve the d core we'd need roster space. Something we don't have. Clendening and Corrado will improve our D (possibly not this year) by the time next year rolls around as they will have more NHL experience.

Worst case senerios of Lack/Markstrom. Worst case is Lack fails under the pressure of being the sole number one, and puts markstrom in a position that he's not ready for. We end up destroying both goalies confidents and not instead of having a future starter for the next 10 years we are in the market trying to find a new goalie.

Seriously what happened in 2013, it's like people forget, we went into the season with a back up goalie that had zero NHL experience. Our number 1 goalie luongo got hurt in december. Lack got his chance and the rest is history. That doesn't happen if we didn't give Lack the opportunity.

In two years we will look back at this deal. Miller will have played solid (may not be for the 6 million valuation) and Markstrom will develop under our eyes over the next two years just as Lack did.

In 2 years Markstrom will be 27 (the same age Lack is currently) and will be ready to take over the role of number 1 goalie.

Yeah, he didn't. I must have misremembered something I read and mistakenly thought he had already signed an extension. Sorry for the confusion!

Either way, Lack has 1 year left on the 2-year deal we signed him to and there's no reason to think we couldn't have signed him to another short-term, reasonable contract that would have been far more attractive than Miller's. And there's no reason Markstrom couldn't have gotten the same chances with Lack here that he can get with Miller.

Even if you're right that the team doesn't have the room to do anything major to make the team more competitive, there's still no point in overpaying for goaltending, especially when it also means we halved our chances of having a reliable starter in 2 years time.

Yes, it's possible both Lack and Markstrom would have crumbled. And it's equally possible that Miller will get hurt and Markstrom will crumble under the pressure. Or, that Miller will continue to decline and we'll try to use Markstrom in hopes of giving the team a better chance, only to see him crumble or get hurt. There are lots of worst case scenarios and none of them seem much better than the possibility that both Lack and Markstrom would crumble, especially since Lack has already worked under the pressure of this market and held his own. Twice.

I hope you're right that Markstrom will be ready in 2 years and Miller can hold the fort until then. But with how much we're already paying Markstrom, he'll likely demand even more than we would have needed to pay to keep Lack and he still might not be as good then as Lack is now, much less how good Lack will likely be by then.

It is what it is and all we can do is hope that the players still on this team play to their potential and live up to our expectations. Until that actually happens, though, I'm going to continue thinking this was a bad decision.

[elvis15]

I envision a long winter of discontent for you.

...

Sounded worse than I meant it. Re-reading it I envisioned an old guy sitting on his porch and yelling at kids to get off his lawn. It could have used a smiley face or something.

...

However...would that be as true if he signed an extension of 4x4? There certainly would be a greater exposure to risk...including that of not getting Marky signed. Risk aversion, when trying to compensate for a poor 5-10 years of drafting, is a solid strategy even though it had the potnetial for a lower yield. I can see why the brain trust would be averse to that.

...

Honestly, if Lack gets a deal like that and Markstrom has proven to be equal or better half way through, that's not an issue for me. That's up to Markstrom to earn the extra playing time and starter role though. If he doesn't earn it and is unhappy being behind Lack, then it's not an issue for me if he leaves you.

Lack exuded the feeling of just being happy to be here, and happy to be a part of a team that was doing well (and a reason that they were). I think he'd take a back up role if it came to it, regardless of what numbers were on his contract.

...

Heck...I don't have a clue. At least we wil get the answer to that in the next two years, we can be certain of that. Lots to discuss.

I'm sympathetic to that position...and I'm all too close to not be. In the entertainment industry, which we are, engaging personas are hugely important. Lack is definitely more marketable than Miller. Unfortunately, in sports entertainment there are mitigating concerns that require serious consultation. A new product is equally important though... and this market has shown to become stale with the product. Would having Lack LT be part of that? I can't say. I do believe that the chosen course allows for more turnover more quickly and that may be the point.

/ On a side note, reading over the last couple of pages....isn't it exemplary to see a discussion in CT be proglumated by members that are knowledgable, respectful, and insightful?

It's like a throwback to 2004.

We've covered a fair amount of what's available to discuss for now I think (although I'm sure we'll find something), but considering the discussion is well thought out and pretty civil I'd have no issue if we were still here talking about it in two years.

[elvis15]

I didn't know that Lack signed an extension with the hurricanes?

More cap space doesn't help us if we didn't plan on doing anything with it. In order to improve the d core we'd need roster space. Something we don't have. Clendening and Corrado will improve our D (possibly not this year) by the time next year rolls around as they will have more NHL experience.

Worst case senerios of Lack/Markstrom. Worst case is Lack fails under the pressure of being the sole number one, and puts markstrom in a position that he's not ready for. We end up destroying both goalies confidents and not instead of having a future starter for the next 10 years we are in the market trying to find a new goalie.

Seriously what happened in 2013, it's like people forget, we went into the season with a back up goalie that had zero NHL experience. Our number 1 goalie luongo got hurt in december. Lack got his chance and the rest is history. That doesn't happen if we didn't give Lack the opportunity.

In two years we will look back at this deal. Miller will have played solid (may not be for the 6 million valuation) and Markstrom will develop under our eyes over the next two years just as Lack did.

In 2 years Markstrom will be 27 (the same age Lack is currently) and will be ready to take over the role of number 1 goalie.

More cap space doesn't have to be used the second it opens up. Deadline space (not for rentals, but to take a bad but expiring contract off a contender perhaps to get a good prospect/pick?) is one thing, but Benning said coming into free agency he was more interested in next year's crop. He can't be active next summer if he doesn't create more cap space soon.

I do like how you note the worst case for a Lack/Markstrom tandem and then post a best case for what could happen with Miller/Markstrom by comparison. Well, Lack could do well and we could see Markstrom allowed more starts than he would be under Miller, and give him the opportunity you're talking about. Or, Miller could re-injure himself (or have another injury) and Markstrom would be forced into a role he might not be ready for anyway.

I'm trying not to be overly pessimistic about the chances in either scenario, but I see less risk and better chance we end up with a younger goalie by moving Miller. But you're certainly trying to paint an optimistic picture that's not necessarily more likely to happen and does carry risk of its own.

[oldnews]

I'm not nearly as optimistic we'd get that return for Miller even as a rental. How good will be in 2 years if he's starting to trend downwards? How many teams will use that much of the cap on a rental goalie when it might be better spent elsewhere? Would Miller even ok a move like that if it wasn't to an optimal team?

To undersell on a fan favourite in Lack - especially in a market where they're worried about declining ticket sales - instead of moving Miller for whatever we could was the wrong move in my opinion.

No worries elvis. I have a take on the 'secret plan' (to maximize return.

I agree with tm's take on the return - I don't see much worth fretting over - a 2nd or the 66th, the point imo is that they managed to land Brisebois, a good pick imo.

But the plan.....deal Eddie as they did - get the pick.

Re-sign Markstrom and give him a yera of development with the security of Miller.

Deal Miller at next year's draft, when he has a viable one year term left - for another pick - what round that might be doesn't concern me much.

July 1st - Eddie Lack, my sweet lord, is a UFA - and we bring him on home (ala Antoine Vermette).

Jacob and Eddie makeup the formidable Swedish tandem we've been waiting for.

Is Eddie too nice a guy to leave Carolina? We will see.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

More cap space doesn't have to be used the second it opens up. Deadline space (not for rentals, but to take a bad but expiring contract off a contender perhaps to get a good prospect/pick?) is one thing, but Benning said coming into free agency he was more interested in next year's crop. He can't be active next summer if he doesn't create more cap space soon.

I do like how you note the worst case for a Lack/Markstrom tandem and then post a best case for what could happen with Miller/Markstrom by comparison. Well, Lack could do well and we could see Markstrom allowed more starts than he would be under Miller, and give him the opportunity you're talking about. Or, Miller could re-injure himself (or have another injury) and Markstrom would be forced into a role he might not be ready for anyway.

I'm trying not to be overly pessimistic about the chances in either scenario, but I see less risk and better chance we end up with a younger goalie by moving Miller. But you're certainly trying to paint an optimistic picture that's not necessarily more likely to happen and does carry risk of its own.

We have Hammer and Vbrata coming off the books next summer. Burrows, Higgins, Miller the year after and possibly the sedins the following. Cap space is not an issue. Again taking on a contract isn't ideal but say we could. Teams don't just dump 1-2 year contracts, it would be us taking on 4+. and honestly when is the last time that's happened? The return isn't a 1st round pick or a grade A prospect, It would be more around the value of a.... lets say 3rd round + 7th round pick..

Only reason I brought up worst case is Poetica ask what the worst case scenerio was.

No worries elvis. I have a take on the 'secret plan' (to maximize return.

I agree with tm's take on the return - I don't see much worth fretting over - a 2nd or the 66th, the point imo is that they managed to land Brisebois, a good pick imo.

But the plan.....deal Eddie as they did - get the pick.

Re-sign Markstrom and give him a yera of development with the security of Miller.

Deal Miller at next year's draft, when he has a viable one year term left - for another pick - what round that might be doesn't concern me much.

July 1st - Eddie Lack, my sweet lord, is a UFA - and we bring him on home (ala Antoine Vermette).

Jacob and Eddie makeup the formidable Swedish tandem we've been waiting for.

Is Eddie too nice a guy to leave Carolina? We will see.

Wouldn't that be something...

[JohnScott]

New sig

Oh and Lack's return was kind of weak but Miller's wouldn't have been that great either, especially with that cap.

[Gaudette Celly]

But the plan.....deal Eddie as they did - get the pick.

Re-sign Markstrom and give him a yera of development with the security of Miller.

Deal Miller at next year's draft, when he has a viable one year term left - for another pick - what round that might be doesn't concern me much.

July 1st - Eddie Lack, my sweet lord, is a UFA - and we bring him on home (ala Antoine Vermette).

Jacob and Eddie makeup the formidable Swedish tandem we've been waiting for.

Is Eddie too nice a guy to leave Carolina? We will see.

If Demko joins the Comets and the end of the season, that gives him one year of pro -- probably not enough to be ready as an NHL backup -- when Markstrom and Miller expire the year after. But considering what he's done the last few years with that injury and is now reportedly feeling better than ever, he could well really blow it up this year.

A lot depends on how Markstrom develops, but perhaps they see Demko as being nearer in the plans than we may think. A FA stop-gap may be required, but I just don't see the point of bringing Lack back when they believe Markstrom to be the better prospect and Demko not all that far off.

[elvis15]

No worries elvis. I have a take on the 'secret plan' (to maximize return.

I agree with tm's take on the return - I don't see much worth fretting over - a 2nd or the 66th, the point imo is that they managed to land Brisebois, a good pick imo.

But the plan.....deal Eddie as they did - get the pick.

Re-sign Markstrom and give him a yera of development with the security of Miller.

Deal Miller at next year's draft, when he has a viable one year term left - for another pick - what round that might be doesn't concern me much.

July 1st - Eddie Lack, my sweet lord, is a UFA - and we bring him on home (ala Antoine Vermette).

Jacob and Eddie makeup the formidable Swedish tandem we've been waiting for.

Is Eddie too nice a guy to leave Carolina? We will see.

I'm in, and I tweeted to both Lack and his mom after the deal to say they were welcome back in Vancouver at any time. His mom retweeted/favourited that so it must mean they'd like to come back!

We have Hammer and Vbrata coming off the books next summer. Burrows, Higgins, Miller the year after and possibly the sedins the following. Cap space is not an issue. Again taking on a contract isn't ideal but say we could. Teams don't just dump 1-2 year contracts, it would be us taking on 4+. and honestly when is the last time that's happened? The return isn't a 1st round pick or a grade A prospect, It would be more around the value of a.... lets say 3rd round + 7th round pick..

...

Hammer and Vrbata would help our cap space, but that assumes we don't re-sign one of them. Then we'll have to re-sign some other players too, and it depends on how active Benning really wants to be for how much cap space he'll want. It doesn't mean we can discount being smart about the cap now.

...

A lot depends on how Markstrom develops, but perhaps they see Demko as being nearer in the plans than we may think. A FA stop-gap may be required, but I just don't see the point of bringing Lack back when they believe Markstrom to be the better prospect and Demko not all that far off.

Believing and seeing are two different things. We've seen what Lack has to offer, and I guess we'll just have to believe Markstrom and Demko can match that level at least.

[elvis15]

Just with all the serious discussion in this thread, thought I'd add a little levity:

GRAPHIC COMMENTS: IT'S MILLER TIME AND BOY DO I NEED A DRINK

Well, it's been over a week since the Canucks held their annual Summer Summit event for season ticket holders. It's basically an orgy of wasted food and discounted merchandise followed by a chance to hear from the Canucks brain trust and even ask them a few questions.

As you can expect, it was a complete train wreck this year, given some of the player decisions the team has made lately. You can watch it in all it's glory here.

But the one thing I'm still not quite over is the bomb dropped by Jim Benning in response to fans voicing their displeasure at the Eddie Lack trade. I'm not even sure Benning intended to let this one out of the bag, but he did.

And oof.

The Canucks could have moved Ryan Miller and his $12 million contract, but chose not to. Instead, they chose to move the cheaper, and better, Eddie Lack.

So yeah. I need a drink.

Think about that for a minute. The could have freed up much needed cap space and kept the better goaltender.

Cheaper and better. Not or. And.

Well, if that doesn't show a complete, er, lack of common sense, I don't know what does:

But maybe there's a method to Benning's madness.

Maybe this is all part of the plan to finally rid Vancouver of one of its most lingering problems: the neverending string of goalie controversies.

I mean, the fewer NHL calibre goalies you have, the lower the chance of a controversy, right? RiGHT?!!

Please tell me that's how it works. #sigh

[SamJamIam]

Just with all the serious discussion in this thread, thought I'd add a little levity:

GRAPHIC COMMENTS: IT'S MILLER TIME AND BOY DO I NEED A DRINK

Meh. Graphic Comments has just become an endless bitchfest. We get it, you hated MG, now you hate JB. Prust sucks, Sbisa sucks, Miller sucks, Lack is god. PITB is far more enjoyable to read.

[oldnews]

Just with all the serious discussion in this thread, thought I'd add a little levity:

GRAPHIC COMMENTS: IT'S MILLER TIME AND BOY DO I NEED A DRINK

Meh. I love Eddie, would have moved Miller, etc, but the crybabies in Vancouver are insufferable.

This is not a "common sense" thing - it's a matter of opinion thing - which is why I got over it quickly.

The idea that one's own opinion is 'common sense' is plain, small-minded arrogance.

[TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy]

They kept the better goalie. One thing previous management failed when they traded luongo.

At least he's done something right.

The return for lack was a 2nd. People need to get over it. The guy we got was ranked in the top 60. It was a 3rd but we got the guy we wanted.

This. Along with the fact we were yet again dealing from a weak position that both Hammond and talbot deals were not.

And to all those that said Markstrom wasn't going anywhere please read the waiver rules.... They have been posted numerous times. Markstrom would have to clear waivers again.... And I guarantee he wouldn't clear this time.

[5Fivehole0]

http://ingoalmag.com/news/determining-goalie-value-to-new-teams-by-danger-zone/

This is why we trade Eddie, and why he is not valuable or as good as most on CDC thought.

[5Fivehole0]

This. Along with the fact we were yet again dealing from a weak position that both Hammond and talbot deals were not.

And to all those that said Markstrom wasn't going anywhere please read the waiver rules.... They have been posted numerous times. Markstrom would have to clear waivers again.... And I guarantee he wouldn't clear this time.

For sure, tons of teams would have snatched Markstrom up. Winnipeg, Edmonton, San Jose, Arizona, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc...

[oldnews]

http://ingoalmag.com/news/determining-goalie-value-to-new-teams-by-danger-zone/

This is why we trade Eddie, and why he is not valuable or as good as most on CDC thought.

Not sure how you conclude that when that article doesn't really suggest that - at all. What it suggest is:

1) Lack is better than Lehner

2) "Lack’s ratio of high to low danger chances is easily the greatest of the three" (between Talbot, Lack and Lehner)

3) "Lack would have posted a slightly better save percentage in Buffalo than he did in Vancouver!"

4) "Talbot and Lack have a raw save percentage more than 1.5 points apart to begin. If they switched places, that gap would narrow significantly: Talbot falls to a 92.69, while Lack rises to a 91.96.

What it essentially says is that Talbot is the best of the three, but the margin is closer than it appears with these particular analytics are applied.

The sum would seem to suggest that Lack is worth more and is better than most people here perceived.

[Baggins]

Not sure how you conclude that when that article doesn't really suggest that - at all. What it suggest is:

1) Lack is better than Lehner

2) "Lack’s ratio of high to low danger chances is easily the greatest of the three" (between Talbot, Lack and Lehner)

3) "Lack would have posted a slightly better save percentage in Buffalo than he did in Vancouver!"

4) "Talbot and Lack have a raw save percentage more than 1.5 points apart to begin. If they switched places, that gap would narrow significantly: Talbot falls to a 92.69, while Lack rises to a 91.96.

What it essentially says is that Talbot is the best of the three, but the margin is closer than it appears with these particular analytics are applied.

The sum would seem to suggest that Lack is worth more and is better than most people here perceived.

Ultimately Lack is only worth what another team is willing to pay for him.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

You're right there is no argument that Lack is nowhere near Miller in capability. There is however an argument that Lack is very much close to Miller in capability. That was shown when he took over from Miller during his injury and he put up similar numbers.

Do you want to try and say only Miller can handle a majority workload? Probable in a higher percentage than Lack, but by no means significantly more to the point that Lack can't be a starter. Maybe it's a 65/35 split that's better for Lack where Miller could maybe do 75/25, but then again with Miller's age perhaps he can't handle that much workload for extended periods as well.

But then we should also look at what we expect this team to be. We certainly want the team to be positive and have a winning atmosphere, but how much of that can we reasonably expect? What is keep them in the running? For a Stanley Cup? Or just for a one and done playoff spot? Perhaps you're worried we'll be in the running for a 1st overall pick?

He doesn't have to be Schneider to be able to start a reasonable percentage of games. Markstrom will need starts sometime, and if he's not ready to back up a starter this year then we'll be in trouble anyway. Imagine if Miller gets injured again, is that more or less plausible than Lack not being able to carry the team?

Easy, eh? Then why didn't Eriksson become that player? Why doesn't every team just go out and find that player before us?

And considering the cost of players like Lehner, Talbot and even Jones - Lack's peers - I'd hardly say a replacement can be had for nothing.

I can imagine a lot.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

But, being as we're on the bubble as is, how does keeping Miller over a fan favourite in Lack (who's cheaper and younger and developed by the Canucks) and getting what's regarded as a less than optimal return affect fan's perception of the team and willingness to spend money?

Oh yeah. The fans should run the team. Linden should scramble to keep this mob happy, not by executing a plan to create a winning team, but by showering candy from the rooftops and letting fans vote online on free agents and draft picks.

[oldnews]

Ultimately Lack is only worth what another team is willing to pay for him.

True, but that wasn't really the point of contention.

I'm not sure why people have a hard time factoring the return for Lack.

He may hypothetically be 'worth' more, but the context in whichi he was dealt certainly effects the return.

As that article referenced points out, he is easily comparable to the other two goaltenders that were on the market - better than Lehner, while Talbot had a slight edge.

However, the Canucks and Benning had no leverage, where their trade partners did. Markstrom's waiver eligibility meant the Canucks had to deal someone - and every potential trade partner knew that. With a pair of comparables also available, the market was saturated enough that the demand wasn't strong enough to match his 'value'. As you say, in the end it comes down to what you can get for an asset - their perceived worth is only an abstraction. So they sent him to an eastern franchise that is not exactly asset rich.

We complain a lot about the Miller signing, but the upside to that signing is regaining a pick where otherwise there would not have been one - the 3rd for Lack may not satisfy some people, but both he and Miller were UFAs, and without Miller, Lack is likely not dealt and Brisebois is not a Canuck.

[5 decades and no cup]

Ultimately Lack is only worth what another team is willing to pay for him.

...and what kind of player Brisebois develops into.