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

[oldnews]

I share your optimism, with one caveat... Personally, I see the Canucks on the outside looking in this season. But I think in the long run, trading away some vets at the trade deadline is in the best interests of the franchise.

We'll have additional assets from those trades, combined with getting more games under the belts of Horvat, Clendening, Corrado, Markstrom, Baertschi, Vey, etc., and clearing up roster spots and money for a big trade/signing or two (including the ever-elusive offense-generating D-man). Then we'd also be at the point where most of Shinkaruk, McCann, Jensen, Grenier, Guance, Hutton, Virtanen, Cassels, Pedan, etc. will be ready to make the jump too (some of them may have already as of the deadline sell-off). I think that in one year we'll really have an exciting team loaded with young depth, ready to make waves as early as 2016-17.

I'm OK with one painful year. In fact, I sort of welcome it. And I think with all the 1-year-remaining deals we have on potential rentals (Hamhuis, Vrbata, Prust, Bartkowski, Weber...), it seems to me that Benning is planning for it.

Well, he has them well positioned imo to go either way depending on the team's performance this year.

[RUPERTKBD]

I disagree with you there wholeheartedly. From my experience, when you're playing for a program with a tradition of winning you go into each season and every game expecting to win. There's confidence around the team that you'll win regardless of whatever adversity you might run into. Playing for programs with lesser reputations I personally never got that same feeling.

Now, they're (the players) all competitive and wouldn't be where they are if they weren't, but I still think this plays a role even for them.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Over the years I've seen many players who manage to become stars, despite their respective teams suffering through poor seasons. Joe Sakic and Steve Yzerman come to mind right away. John Tavares seems to be doing okay as well...

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Nuck Luck’s Negotiation Tactics 101

Benning: “Hey Edmonton you want Lack?”

Chiarelli: “Sure, I’ll give you my third”

Benning: Carolina already offered us a 3^rd and 7^th you’ll have to beat that”

Chiarelli: “Our 57^th?”

Benning: “No, we think he’s worth more, we’re thinking the same price flames just paid for Hamilton”

Chiarelli:“Ok you convinced me, here, take McDavid”

I don’t think you understand negotiating. Your whole thesis is that JB needed to sell Lack harder. Well This isn’t an open market. This is 29 team league where all the teams have just as much insight on your players as you do. GM’s don’t need selling, Edmonton’s scouts likely saw Lack play half his games live and the other half recorded on TV. He’s not some player coming in from across the world that no one has never heard of.

There were only a certain amount of teams interested in goalies this year. There were other “better” goalie options on the market this year as well. Canucks wanted a pick in the 2015 draft. Other teams have all summer to figure out their goalie situation. They were in no rush to make a decision. Carolina could have waited until after the draft to give us a better offer.

Francis: “We offer you the 3^rd and 7^th”

Benning: “We want at least a 2^nd this year”

Francis: “Well we are not in a rush, we still have Ward for another year” “If you don’t like it, we can talk later in the summer if he’s still around”

You seem to think that Lack was this sought after Commodity where teams felt that if they didn’t get him they were losing out on the next big thing. They know what Lack is, they’ve all seen him play. Just because I tell you my worn out Ball cap is worth $1,000 doesn’t mean some sucker will fall for it. All teams interested in goalies would have done their homework on Lack. The would already know the value that he’s worth and they would know the market value with the current goalie market.

NYR had said repeatedly that they wanted more than just a first round pick for Talbot. They settled for a late 2^nd and 3^rd.

Would you have been satisfied with a return of the 57^th & 76^th, because that’s essentially what Talbot (the more sought after commodity) got, so it’s going to be less than that, so let’s say, 76^th and the 86^th? Does that make you happier? Are you really going to whine and complain about a 4^th round pick.

Here’s what you don’t know. You might think that Lack had similar value to Talbot, but that doesn’t mean Edmonton thought the same. Just because they’re willing to pay premium for the guy you want the most doesn’t mean they’re willing to pay nearly as much for their second choice.

[RUPERTKBD]

The point that some of us have been making is that if Lack was not "sought after", why trade him?

According to JB himself, there was interest in Miller, so why not trade him instead, get an actual return and go with the youth movement in goal as well as everywhere else? It's not like this team has any chance of contending for the Cup with Miller as the goaltender anyway...

If we're going to do this thing, lets do it and skip the "We need mentors for the young players" routine, which IMHO is JB's way of defending a signing that he never should have made in the first place.

[Me_]

The point that some of us have been making is that if Lack was not "sought after", why trade him?

According to JB himself, there was interest in Miller, so why not trade him instead, get an actual return and go with the youth movement in goal as well as everywhere else? It's not like this team has any chance of contending for the Cup with Miller as the goaltender anyway...

If we're going to do this thing, lets do it and skip the "We need mentors for the young players" routine, which IMHO is JB's way of defending a signing that he never should have made in the first place.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You make no sense. If you think youth is better served without mentors, you are highly mistaken.

Some people do get it. However, you definitely do not get it.

At all. Stay home. You're dangerous.

[RUPERTKBD]

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You make no sense. If you think youth is better served without mentors, you are highly mistaken.

Some people do get it. However, you definitely do not get it.

At all. Stay home. You're dangerous.

Sure slick. Whatever you say.

BTW: I didn't say it was "better served". I said it's overrated. Players manage without a veteran looking over their shoulders all the time.

[GreyHatnDart]

Sure slick. Whatever you say.

BTW: I didn't say it was "better served". I said it's overrated. Players manage without a veteran looking over their shoulders all the time.

I think more that the word "mentorship" is being taken slightly out of context here. In my mind in the position of a goaltender, a veteran serves more as a safety net. This will allow Markstrom to play without the pressure of having to be A+ every night. If he falters, he can look to Miller to pick him up. And that does make a difference Rupert, in most walks of life.

[RUPERTKBD]

I think more that the word "mentorship" is being taken slightly out of context here. In my mind in the position of a goaltender, a veteran serves more as a safety net. This will allow Markstrom to play without the pressure of having to be A+ every night. If he falters, he can look to Miller to pick him up. And that does make a difference Rupert, in most walks of life.

And in my opinion, Lack would have been able to "pick Markstrom up"...

And what sort of "difference" do you mean? Are you saying that Markstrom and/or Lack would have been ruined without the Miller safety net? Do you mean the Canucks might have won more games?

In the first case, I disagree. IMO, Lack showed that he can handle the pressure just fine and I don't buy that he and Markstrom couldn't have formed an effective partnership.

In the second case, I believe that the team will be on the outside looking in at the end of the season, so what good do a few more wins do the team?

[chrisbanks]

Anyone else think Jim made this comment to help Miller? Think of it from Ryan's perspective... Last off season he seen 2 Cali teams say thanks but no thanks to his services... And then this off season all he is hearing is how he's no Better than eddie and he can't be traded because no one wants him.... Jim messed up with miller's contract and the was a very real chance of if he didn't move eddie that we would have been luongo Schneider 2.0, so Jim comes out publicly and makes a statement that other teams did want Miller and that the canucks believe in him enough to keep him to help Ryan's mental state and knows damn well markstrom will not even come close to challenging Miller for the #1 spot next year. Nothing breeds mediocrity more than 0 competition within the organization and right now I don't really see much competition for any spot on the team.

[RUPERTKBD]

Anyone else think Jim made this comment to help Miller? Think of it from Ryan's perspective... Last off season he seen 2 Cali teams say thanks but no thanks to his services... And then this off season all he is hearing is how he's no Better than eddie and he can't be traded because no one wants him.... Jim messed up with miller's contract and the was a very real chance of if he didn't move eddie that we would have been luongo Schneider 2.0, so Jim comes out publicly and makes a statement that other teams did want Miller and that the canucks believe in him enough to keep him to help Ryan's mental state and knows damn well markstrom will not even come close to challenging Miller for the #1 spot next year. Nothing breeds mediocrity more than 0 competition within the organization and right now I don't really see much competition for any spot on the team.

I think that JB's comments in general are always designed to benefit the Canucks and the players that are still on the roster.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, (in fact, I think it's the way things should be done) but I think that at times, such comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Gurn]

"This is 29 team league where all the teams have just as much insight on your players as you do. GM’s don’t need selling"

Jim Benning disagrees with you, he has already said he believes that teams in the East do not have a good grasp on players in the west.

[VanGnome]

Wow, the amount of completely irrational whining in this thread is out of control!

Miller was a fantastic signing, and here's why:

1. Provided stability when we needed it the most. Previous to Miller, we had a ridiculous GM who pretty much destroyed Luongo's soul in dealing Schneider for Horvat when Luongo had already checked out. Then, when the nut of a coach who was Tortorella was hired, basically confused the hell out of the offensive and defensive schemes, leading to poor defensive coverage which resulted in sub par goaltending. Meanwhile, Lack becomes Schneider 2.0 and Tortorella disgraces Luongo at the Heritage Classic while the fans taunt GMMG, who subsequently deals Luongo shortly after for a collective bag of pucks and Markstrom.

2. The term and salary were both strategic; firstly in terms of, heh term, it was designed to give enough time to both transition the roster from old to new while still competing during that transition. In terms of dollars, given the collective gong show the past few seasons have been goaltending and management/coaching wise, an overpayment was not only necessary, but it showed that the commitment from ownership is still there to make this a competitive team.

3. With the signing of Miller, and the drafting of Demko, it signified that one of Markstrom OR Lack were expendable, and that either were yet another "bridge" solution until Demko is ready to take over starting duties. Given what transpired with the AHL playoffs, Markstrom made Lack expendable. Markstrom is younger, is still an RFA protected asset and will provide more "bridge years" than Lack would. Lack was also a pending UFA and would have required significant overpayment to keep in Vancouver which would have not only been counter productive, but a complete waste of cap dollars when those could go to more premier free agents that could have more direct benefit to helping the team return to top form.

The love in for Lack while commendable, is pretty demonstrative of the collective panty twisting that this community engages in while completely ignoring that it's not only a professional sport, but also a business.

I don't believe that the Miller injury really had anything to do with the outcome of the Calgary series, what I do know, however is that when you average out the time Miller has and will be here, you'll see the highs and lows will be less intense than had he not been here.

This was always a 3-5 year timeframe once JB and TL came on board, one year does not make or break a plan.

Regarding everything else JB has done since arriving (which is significant since he's only just entering his 2nd year as GM), I'm more than comfortable.

I'm one of the few on the boat SS Pragmatism when it comes to assessing the value of the Sbisa and Dorsett contracts, as well as the Prust trade. It is WAY too soon to be passing judgement, and any damnation or praise of any of those deals is strictly premature.

Damn, Vancouver used to be known for it's laid back and easy going personality what happened? When did the majority of people following this team become uptight drama queens with a masters degree in running an NHL organization?

Let's wait and see what actually happens this coming season, there is a reason the games are played on the ice, and not in a god damned forum.

/diatribe

[RUPERTKBD]

When did the majority of people following this team become uptight drama queens with a masters degree in running an NHL organization?

Probably about the time that some of them became condescending know-it-alls who present their opinions as fact and feel the need to insult others who may not share their views...

[TOMapleLaughs]

Vancouver was 'laid back and easy going'... Before 1994 perhaps. But I'd go back to before Expo 88. The town hasn't been the same since.

[VanGnome]

Probably about the time that some of them became condescending know-it-alls who present their opinions as fact and feel the need to insult others who may not share their views...

Right, okay I'll bite and indulge your straw hat laden dig.

In what context do you believe my statements to be presented as fact? Is it because my conclusions based on the evidence provided (as equally available to all) are in line with what JB has actually presented to now, and flies directly in the face of everyone who is so adamantly (and could be construed as equally presenting their opinion as fact) and flippantly arguing otherwise?

Yes, I have been a *bit* arrogant and condescending, but I don't think it's without merit; also I have not made any suggestion that others are not entitled to their opinion. I merely presented my observation.

It does amuse me however, that you've chosen that particular tidbit to focus upon, and basically ignore the other 99% of it.

[Junkyard Dog]

It does amuse me however, that you've chosen that particular tidbit to focus upon, and basically ignore the other 99% of it.

[GreyHatnDart]

And in my opinion, Lack would have been able to "pick Markstrom up"...

And what sort of "difference" do you mean? Are you saying that Markstrom and/or Lack would have been ruined without the Miller safety net? Do you mean the Canucks might have won more games?

In the first case, I disagree. IMO, Lack showed that he can handle the pressure just fine and I don't buy that he and Markstrom couldn't have formed an effective partnership.

In the second case, I believe that the team will be on the outside looking in at the end of the season, so what good do a few more wins do the team?

I guess that just relates to my earlier statement about Benning just not seeing Lack as the guy to do that and put the team in the best situation to be competitive. Which is what his aim is.

As far as your speculation about how effective Lack/Markstrom tandem would've been, it's moot at this point.

I don't disagree with your last point, I think we'd be better off on the outside looking in come deadline time so we can be sellers without some fans being up in arms. That's an opinion we share.

[RUPERTKBD]

Right, okay I'll bite and indulge your straw hat laden dig.

In what context do you believe my statements to be presented as fact? Is it because my conclusions based on the evidence provided (as equally available to all) are in line with what JB has actually presented to now, and flies directly in the face of everyone who is so adamantly (and could be construed as equally presenting their opinion as fact) and flippantly arguing otherwise?

Yes, I have been a *bit* arrogant and condescending, but I don't think it's without merit; also I have not made any suggestion that others are not entitled to their opinion. I merely presented my observation.

It does amuse me however, that you've chosen that particular tidbit to focus upon, and basically ignore the other 99% of it.

I didn't address the rest of the post because I don't agree with it and have been saying so for the better part of 75 pages. At some point you just have to agree to disagree on certain things, which I had just suggested to a couple of other posters who disagree with me.

The point is, I was able to suggest this without calling anyone "whiny", "irrational", or a "drama queen".

Also, I have no idea what you're referring to with your "straw hat laden dig" phrase.

I guess that just relates to my earlier statement about Benning just not seeing Lack as the guy to do that and put the team in the best situation to be competitive. Which is what his aim is.

As far as your speculation about how effective Lack/Markstrom tandem would've been, it's moot at this point.

I don't disagree with your last point, I think we'd be better off on the outside looking in come deadline time so we can be sellers without some fans being up in arms. That's an opinion we share.

This point has been made to me before and of course I am well aware of the fact. However, I don't see management making a decision on something as a reason for there to be no point in discussing it.

The discussion at hand is not whether management made a decision, it's whether they made the correct decision. My opinion, flawed though it may be, is that they did not.

[GreyHatnDart]

Rupert:

I'm aware of that and I'm not talking down to you. I've been following along. The thing is is whether or not you agree or disagree with the tandem moving forward, this is it. Personally I understand the philosophy behind it, and in Boston at least, it worked very well. An up and coming Rask played behind an old vet like Thomas. It may not be a fool-proof strategy but at the very least, at least we HAVE a strategy. I could live with a few years of no goaltending controversies for awhile.

[Junkyard Dog]

Rupert:

I'm aware of that and I'm not talking down to you. I've been following along. The thing is is whether or not you agree or disagree with the tandem moving forward, this is it. Personally I understand the philosophy behind it, and in Boston at least, it worked very well. An up and coming Rask played behind an old vet like Thomas. It may not be a fool-proof strategy but at the very least, at least we HAVE a strategy. I could live with a few years of no goaltending controversies for awhile.

Worked with Luo/Schneider too.